Accord vs. Coalition
December 7, 2008 - 7:21pm
Some opposed to the Coalition have suggested that an accord is a better idea, where the NDP would agree to support a Liberal government for a certain time period under certain conditions and if the Libs renegged on these conditions, the NDP would withdraw its support. This way it is argued you won't have the NDP joining a Liberal government in exchange for a few Cabinet posts and being silent on key issues like Afghanistan.
I'd be fine with that. To me, the main goal of this exercise is just what various parties and many popular organizations said during the election: "Stop Harper!" - a slogan which enjoyed a lot (perhaps a majority) of popular support, and which under circumstances of displacing an "elected" government could help energize the popular movements.
I'm not sure whether such an "accord" would pass muster with the Governor-General, but you know, who really gives a damn. She allowed Harper to blatantly avoid a certain confidence defeat, and she has not explained her decision publicly. I'm glad she has a comfy job for now, because someday she may have to explain herself to the people.
All this raises an interesting question: Why did the NDP agree to a coalition rather than an accord? The allure of 6 cabinet seats? The negative perception of supporting a Liberal government without being part of it? Not enough time to think it through?
The above does not mean I won't support a coalition government if that's what the reality is. I will, for the reasons I've stated, and recognizing the risks as I have. But I'd still like to know why the NDP couldn't have played (or still play) the same role as the Bloc - essentially what happened in spring 2005, although without a signed agreement at that time.
But I'd still like to know why the NDP couldn't have played (or still play) the same role as the Bloc - essentially what happened in spring 2005, although without a signed agreement at that time.
I'd be very surprised if the agreement in question was not reduced to writing and signed.
I'd be very surprised if the agreement in question was not reduced to writing and signed.
Well, maybe it was written, maybe it wasn't, but I never saw a copy - did you? I did see a copy of the signed agreements this time round.
Regardless of that irrelevant point, did you have an opinion about the thread question?
I would think an accord would be a better option than a coalition. For reasons already mentioned in numerous threads by several people, the NDP are now apart of the Liberal party and likely soon to be ruling the country.
For me, the distinction matters little. I was against the coalition because it throws a life line to the Liberals. If anything, an accord does that even better, so I'd be ag'in it.
The Perterson/Arnold accord in Ontario seemed to do wonders for the Liberal Party, not so much for the NDP. If we eliminate the recession of the 1980's, Peterson would not have gambled on the early election call, and we'd certainly not have seen the NDP government take office, so I don't think we can point to that accord as any spring board for the Benedict Rae administration.
It was a springboard for Peterson, however. But now he and Benedict Rae are united in the same party with Buzz hargrove, and they all detest each other.
Like I say, there's always a silver lining.
My attitude is "in for a penny in for a pound". I'm sick of these so-called accords where the NDP supports the Liberals in exchange for almost nothing and where the Liberals get 100% of the credit for anything popular they do. With cabinet seats, the amount of power the NDP has to influence policy is exponentially greater because every department that has an NDP minister will suddenly become a fiefdome of NDP policies. Imagine the kinds of things that Jack layton could do as Minister of Industry and Infrastructure. Imagine what Charlie Angus could do as Minister of Canadian Heritage? Don't you think we would get vastly more progressive policies in health care with Libby Davies running that department as opposed to some typical Liberal deadbeat like Joe Volpe??? I think that this would be a golden opportunity for the NDP to have actual cabinet ministers showing day in and day out and they can manage and we can make policy. I've had it with the thankless role of being a silent invisible partner.
Regardless of that irrelevant point, did you have an opinion about the thread question?
It's not irrelevant at all.
The thread is setting up a dichotomy between an accord and a coalition. Babblers should be clear on the nature of that dichotomy. It would be wrong to suggest that written or unwritten was one of the essential distinguishing characteristics between them.
My position has been elaborated in several threads. I don't propose to repeat it all here. If any deal or agreement is to be made with a capitalist party like the Liberals it must be on a principled basis. I do not see how a coalition can possibly satisfy that requirement, but I can see how a tactical accord could do so.
I don't see Parliament as being the be-all and end-all of politics, however, and those who want to put all hope of salvation in a parliamentary alliance with the Liberals are bound to be disappointed. To me, political action is primarily extra-parliamentary; I agree with the following passage from Sebastian Lamb's commentary:
We should build campaigns to demand genuine reforms such as a full-scale pro-worker overhaul of EI, the construction of non-profit housing and better public transit systems, the strengthening of public pensions, tough regulations to slash greenhouse gas emissions, status for all, and the nationalization of the banks. Vigorous efforts are needed to oppose every effort to scapegoat unions or immigrants for the crisis, and to call for the immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan.
In addition to such campaigns, there is also an opportunity for popular education about capitalism. The economic crisis has dealt a huge blow to confidence in the system. Many people are open to discussing the crisis, capitalism and alternatives. Supporters of radical social change shouldn't miss this opportunity.
I have lived through minority governments and coalitions in Ireland. In the minority government case, the supporter usually got little credit and they suffered in the next election. I can think of 2 instances, fine gael supporting fianna fail when the economic boom began in ireland (they forced them to be financially responsible but got badly hit in the next election) and labour (despite agreement with fine gael) supporting fianna fail another time and suffering in the next election.
In coalition the credit was better shared out. If the NDP ministers are seen to be responsible and do decent jobs their party will benefit.
And by the way, a few NDP ministers would be a huge tonic for the troops.
You have not lived through a party breakthrough like that so perhaps you discount it. People will be floating on air when the NDP ministers get announced and this feeling will be long lasting.
My view is that if you are in politics it is pointless to turn up your nose at power. It could be a generation before you get this chance again. Harper is not turning away from power and neither should you. If you do not take your share of power, your voters will definitely say either that you stood aside as they got screwed or the NDP does not have the balls to take power ever!
Right from the impersonating and faking of the NDP messages to get lunn elected to the taping of the NDP conference call, the cons are proving to be a pack of cheating bastards. They can not be trusted under Harpers leadership. Thats the point of the coalition. The Harper rot has gone right through the party and he is quite prepared to foment civil war to keep power for a while. The cons have a loyal media to the right wing agenda but not necessarly to harper. The coalition has to survive at least until harper is kicked out of the cons on his arse. If they falter now, we, the voters for the ndp, etc will be left to suffer harpers version of thacherism. That will be high unemployment allied to big wage reductions. That has always been the economic policy of these people. It continues to be.
I would think an accord would be a better option than a coalition. For reasons already mentioned in numerous threads by several people, the NDP are now apart of the Liberal party and likely soon to be ruling the country.
The NDP, and with only 19 seats then, did succeed in having most of that $4.5 billion allocated to areas specified. There was supposed to be $1.5 billion for PSE and job training, but I think it was eventually whittled down to a little over a billion. This is another reason for having NDP nannies present and accounted for in these closed door government meetings.
Actually yours is the only annoying tagline I've noticed recently.
I suggest an accord, consisting only of an agreement that theLibeals do certain things when they became the government, would not have satisifed the Govenor-General or any other parties.
One problem was defeating the government on the economic update without precipitating an election. Harper has been playing the game of chicken for months, if not years surviving vote after vote of non-confidence by having the Liberals sit on their hands or making a deal wqith the separatists.. This time Haapre went all out with a blatant attack on women, workrs and democracy after Dion had said the Liberals weren't going to sit on their hands any more. All the oppositon parties had to vote against the bill and that meant an election unless a replacment PM could be agreed on.And it would take a lot inthis situion to pesuade the govenor-gernal that Harper could be replaed without an eelction.Even with the coaltion as solid s coudl be te deal has not yet been done. Imgaien the problem if all we had was an acord.
And the NDP and Bloc had to protect heir interests.
M. Spector, in another thread you answered some of my questions, saying that a minister is in charge of the ministry, but cabinet can overrule the minister, and the PM can effectively tell the G-G to dump a minister etc. I asked whether you were basing your replies on constitution, statute, or practice. If you or someone else could answer, I'd appreciate it. It might help us assess, from a practical standpoint, the effect of having six cabinet seats.
I think that at least one other party has to be there in coalition government to give it a look and feel of legitimacy. The Liberals are a still a swell bunch of guys now and garnered a large percentage of votes, but it was an all time low for them at the same time. Canadians would surely scratch their heads in disbelief with how the opposition Liberals could find themselves taking every cabinet position from the Harpers after receiving fewer votes. As Howie Mandel would say about the rules, deal or no deal, and-or, coalition or no coalition. The Liberals had their kick at the can for twelve years. It's time for inclusiveness in Canadian politics, even if we do still struggle with a dated electoral system.
Here was M. Spector's post from the previous thread:
Who does run a ministry?
The minister, who is answerable to the Prime Minister.
Yes.
The "pleasure" of the GG is essentially whatever the PM tells her it is. He picks the ministers, shuffles them, fires them, at will. The GG rubber stamps.
I'd still like sources for the above responses, but one quick question: If the Lib-NDP coalition came to power with their signed agreement, could the PM still tell the G-G to turf all the NDP ministers?
Presumably people know the question is moot. It is a coalition, and would not survive any tinkering.
However much Layton may have [or not] preferred a Coalition- I think the Liberals demended it. They had, and have, the most to lose if a Coalition comes apart. Stability was required to give it a chance within the Liberal party.
An "accord" seems to give less power, and less credit, to the NDP. If getting into bed with the red team, may as well get some blankets instead of having to sleep halfway on the floor.
In Europe, parties in a coalition remain free to criticize the government. Only the people who are actually in cabinet have to maintain cabinet solidarity. It seems to work all right there.
In Europe, parties in a coalition remain free to criticize the government. Only the people who are actually in cabinet have to maintain cabinet solidarity. It seems to work all right there.
That's how I understand "cabinet solidarity" in Canada as well.
Why would the NDP for example not be free to continue demanding withdrawal from Afghanistan, even if the government (including 6 NDP ministers) does not do so?
In Europe, parties in a coalition remain free to criticize the government. Only the people who are actually in cabinet have to maintain cabinet solidarity. It seems to work all right there.
That's how I understand "cabinet solidarity" in Canada as well.
Why would the NDP for example not be free to continue demanding withdrawal from Afghanistan, even if the government (including 6 NDP ministers) does not do so?
That sounds about right to me. Otherwise, there would be no point in showing up for question period or debates.
"We accept that there is no need for NDP MPs to participate in parliamentary debates or questioning the government, we are subserviant and devoted to the 76ers and have complete faith their judgement on everything including three point shots. Declare war on Pakistan and a national holiday in the name of Genghis Khan. It's all good as far as we're concerned."
I dont think so.
I'm for a coalition govt and not an accord where we are just propping liberals up and they take all the credit. That's what happen with Rae NDP prov govt with Peterson, and after implementing successful NDP programs and policies, called a snap election, and thus Peterson won a majority govt.
I want a coalition govt. I don't want the NDP in the position of pulling the plug on a Liberal led minority govt and hear forever again, how the NDP was responsible for another liberal minority govt going down the tubes. This is in reference to Martin's liberal minority govt and how the narrative was that it was all the NDP's fault, and only if crap.
Nope it a coalition govt. Let Iggy led liberal party pull the plug on the coalition and make them look like they are more interested in their parties success and their jobs rather than Mary and Joe main streeters' jobs.
O
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
Agreed.
Furthermore, in 1985 the Liberals had to follow the policy outline contained in the Accord, but the NDP had no voice in the details and implementation.
I have lived through minority governments and coalitions in Ireland. . . In coalition the credit was better shared out. If the NDP ministers are seen to be responsible and do decent jobs their party will benefit.
And by the way, a few NDP ministers would be a huge tonic for the troops.
You have not lived through a party breakthrough like that so perhaps you discount it. People will be floating on air when the NDP ministers get announced and this feeling will be long lasting.
I agree with the voice of experience here.
if you are in politics it is pointless to turn up your nose at power. It could be a generation before you get this chance again. Harper is not turning away from power and neither should you. If you do not take your share of power, your voters will definitely say either that you stood aside as they got screwed or the NDP does not have the balls to take power ever!
Looking back at the 1985 Accord, we forced the Liberals to provide the best government Ontario has ever had -- better than Rae's from 1990 - 95 -- and got no credit because we dithered over taking cabinet seats.
That would not be a parliamentary system. What country are you referring to?
The Coalition Accord says:
The rules and practices of cabinet confidentiality and solidarity will be strictly maintained. Normal processes of cabinet appointments and governance in the Canadian federal government will be respected. The cabinet is jointly and collectively accountable to Parliament for its work, including in daily question period.
The Bloc, on the other hand, is free to move amendments to government bills, and if it can get the Conservatives to support them they might carry. The NDP might be tempted to support the Bloc amendments but I do not see how they can. Disagreements between the Liberals and NDP will be worked out in cabinet or in the "standing managing committee."
However much Layton may have [or not] preferred a Coalition- I think the Liberals demended it. They had, and have, the most to lose if a Coalition comes apart. Stability was required to give it a chance within the Liberal party.
Exactly my point.
A coalition is the most advantageous arrangement for the Liberal Party because it ties the hands of the NDP and makes it essentially a rump of the Liberal caucus. The NDP would have been better served by an accord.
In Europe, parties in a coalition remain free to criticize the government. Only the people who are actually in cabinet have to maintain cabinet solidarity. It seems to work all right there.
I look forward to watching Jack Layton and the other 5 NDP Cabinet ministers squirming in their seats as NDP backbenchers ask tough questions of the government during question period. But somehow I have a feeling that's never going to happen.
However much Layton may have [or not] preferred a Coalition- I think the Liberals demended it. They had, and have, the most to lose if a Coalition comes apart. Stability was required to give it a chance within the Liberal party.
Exactly my point.
A coalition is the most advantageous arrangement for the Liberal Party because it ties the hands of the NDP and makes it essentially a rump of the Liberal caucus. The NDP would have been better served by an accord.
So let me understand this.
Layton and Duceppe have been discussing cooperation for some time (as we know from various sources, including their eavesdropped caucus).
After Flaherty's statement, they (or just Layton) approach Dion and say, "let's do an accord. You be the government and we'll sign that we won't defeat you, on condition you agree to some economic points".
Dion replies: "No way! The NDP must join the cabinet - otherwise, no deal! We'll let Harper carry on, take away our funding, rule indefinitely as before!"
Unlikely. Highly implausible. Incredible, in fact.
More likely: The NDP couldn't find a way to justify propping up yet another Liberal minority regime without demanding some share of power.
More likely: The NDP couldn't find a way to justify propping up yet another Liberal minority regime without demanding some share of power.
What I consider extremely unlikely is that, if the NDP were really concerned about the optics of propping up yet another Liberal minority government, they would seek to put themselves in a position where their ability to criticize the Liberal government was severely limited, their leading people would be bound to carry the Liberal government's line in public, and they would be locked in to giving the Liberals a blank cheque on every subject not specifically provided for in the written agreement for a period of 2½ years.
In the circumstances it seems to me the least of their concerns was the optics of supporting a Liberal government.
Perhaps you were hoping I had stopped using an annoying tag line. You were wrong; you're reading it now. Why not email a moderator to demand that signature/tag lines be abolished forthwith?
It's the optiks of that annoying tagline. Everyone scram except baird, macKay, and day. I can't hold back much lonnnger.
M. Spector, you actually believe the Liberals demanded that the NDP join the cabinet as a condition of unseating Harper?
Are you sure you've got your analytical specs on tonight?
Predictably, I'm with Wilf and Stockholm. How many times have NDPers been told people won't vote for them, because "they can't win" or "could never form government?" To most Canadians, a party that never wants to come to power is irrelevant, or as Bob Rae very snootily put it, a protest movement. Now obviously very few of the NDP supporters on this board are swayed by those views, or they'd never vote NDP. That is not a precondition for their, or other NDPers, support, but for the vast majority of Canadians the ability, and to a lesser extent desire, of a party to win is a precondition for their vote. It's like voters saying, "if you don't take this government/governing seriously, why should I take you seriously?"or worse yet "I want be on the winning team (e.g. I only vote for first or second place)."
Poor logic to be sure, but from experience I can say that that is the level of sophistication of many voters selection process. The NDP having ministers, besides the policy benefits, also provides the opportunity to shatter that paradigm as the NDP as perpetual losers or the perennial laughing stocks of Canadian elections. I doubt it will be a rapid process, but with the NDP in government (or as ministers), I do think it can occur.
As for the situation in Europe, it is slightly different in that these coalition governments have some kind of ProRep. As a result, when ministers of a party perform particularly well, the voting public rewards them by voting in greater numbers not just for them but for their party as well- as the share of the party's vote determines the share of ministers that party can potentially get in the next government. In other words, if people really want to see Lloyd Axworthy or Joschka Fischer returned to cabinet in the same portfolios, they vote for them AND their party somewhere on their ballots to ensure that happens. It remains to be seen whether there would be any such spillover effect in Canada. I think there could be, especially given the novelty that competent NDP ministers (from Alberta and maybe NFLD no less!) could represent.
No I don't believe that at all.
I believe the Liberals would prefer to have all the cabinet positions.
I believe the only reason they agreed to let the NDP have a (disproportionately small) 25% of the cabinet seats was that it was the price demanded by Layton for handing them a blank cheque for 2½ years. (Maybe he demanded more seats, but Dion bargained him down, who knows?)
No I don't believe that at all.
I believe the Liberals would prefer to have all the cabinet positions.
Sure they would. But it's GG who wants convincing that the NDP and Bloc are onside and will prop up the Liberals for a guaranteed amount of time. And she knows that a Liberals-only gov wont sit well in beer halls across the land, especially since they were already putsched in '06. GG's not wild about a gaggle of boots lining up at her front door at all hours of the night asking her to make perogies. It's monotonous work mashing all that cheese and potatoes when she's half awake.
Fidel, you finally made me chortle. Thanks. Now I'm off to sleep.
How many times have NDPers been told people won't vote for them, because "they can't win" or "could never form government?" To most Canadians, a party that never wants to come to power is irrelevant, or as Bob Rae very snootily put it, a protest movement.
The Koalition changes none of this. The NDP stiill "can't win" and "could never form a government" in the eyes of most voters. In fact, by forming a coalition, they merely demonstrate that the only way they can get a whiff of power is by attaching themselves to the Liberal Party.
Why shouldn't voters respond by saying there is no reason to vote NDP if the best they can offer is a Liberal government? They might as well vote for the real thing.
Voters don't just care about "winning" they also care about politics. You would rather not talk about the politics of this situation; you might just as well make the case that the NDP could offer to enter a coalition with Stephen Harper for 2½ years in order to prove to the voters that they really really are serious about wanting power.
Hey I'm sorry about that thread with the Kathlicks. It's not easy accepting that someone has made a better argument than myself
But it's GG who wants convincing that the NDP and Bloc are onside and will prop up the Liberals for a guaranteed amount of time.
The GG doesn't give a shit who's going to be in the cabinet. She just needs to have demonstrable assurance that the Liberal leader has the confidence of the House. She doesn't have to have an assurance that the Liberals will continue to have the confidence of the House for any particular guaranteed length of time. As far as she's concerned the House is entitled to vote non-confidence at any time. Nobody's hands have to be tied in order to satisfy her. The guaranteed 2½ year honeymoon is to give comfort to Iggy, not the GG.
M. Spector, you're wrong. If the NDP gets cabinet ministers then it HAS formed government and that is exactly the way it will be sold and will be perceived.
ETA: Furthermore, unless babblers have lived in any of these places, it is worth trying to understand that the achievement of NDP cabinet ministers in any of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador would be the making of an almost unimaginable dream for many NDP supporters in those provinces. If you think it's hard to campaign or keep the faith for the NDP in Ontario, BC, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, then think about the NDP volunteers of NFLD, Alberta, and Quebec. The effect of having a federal NDP minister on the party grassroots in those provinces would be something to witness- especially for a lot of the old timers there. Give me that over a 308 riding strategy any day.
But it's GG who wants convincing that the NDP and Bloc are onside and will prop up the Liberals for a guaranteed amount of time.
The GG doesn't give a shit who's going to be in the cabinet. She just needs to have demonstrable assurance that the Liberal leader has the confidence of the House. She doesn't have to have an assurance that the Liberals will continue to have the confidence of the House for any particular guaranteed length of time.
Of course she doesnt. And if it's not butter, might as well just go with the Harpers. They're pretty convincing themselves with 143 seats. It would have to be a fairly compelling reason to handover the reins of governance to an oppo party that placed a distant second. GG's not going to be convinced with a half-hearted,
"Ya go for it you Liberals. But don't expect us to support anything you say or do whatsoever over the next 18 to 30 months. We want the same elbow room to vote against and block and holdup and maybe even side with the Harpers like the devils we can be", from the NDP. That's not going to work any better than what we have now. GG wants a firm,
"Because we wont turn on you like the wolf at grandma's house once inside the door", from that well known agitator Layton and crew. Smooth sailing and happy family all the way, and even doing some social democracy along the way, isnt that right, Liberals?
Uh! I wish I knew what really is happening in the GG's mind these days, but apparently she's off limits for interrogation by the public. Besides, she's blocking me for a vulcan mind meld. Darn!
Iggy better not be playin' baseball poker rules either. He's an unknown quantity, but it looks like he may be more acceptable to Canadians as far as opinion polls go. Personally I have no problem with Dion's image or his speaking abilities or the fact that Harper beat him. That's not saying much for Canadians to have selected Harper over Dion, if indeed Canadians do choose who they vote for based on who is head of a political party.
Forthwith asap pronto arivaderci undalay arrrrriba!
Yes, and most likely of all: Jack Layton is not a natural-born stand-alone critic. His experience on Toronto City Council, and in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, was in working with others and making things happen.
Getting Things Done (Nov. 7, 2005)
During the last campaign, we asked Canadians for a central role in this Parliament. A million more people voted for us. And though doubling our vote didn't double our seats, people did give New Democrats the central role we sought.
On election night, I promised we'd use our role in Parliament wisely and that we'd be true to our values and to the values of those who voted for us. Quite simply, we committed to try and get something done in this Parliament for people.
That's what we've done. . . in the spring of last year, the minority Liberal government that seemed to think it was entitled to do as it pleased ran into a parliamentary crisis. Then, Mr. Martin finally realized that his government was a minority, one that would have to work with others if it hoped to remain in office.
So we proposed changes we believed people wanted in a budget--not to make it perfect, but to make it better.
Specifically, we took out the corporate tax cuts Mr. Martin didn't tell people about when running for office. We proposed that money be invested in education and training, in the environment, in housing, including Aboriginal housing, in wage protection for workers whose companies are in trouble and in increasing foreign aid.
We demonstrated our commitment to balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. We supported both debt repayment and small business tax reduction.
Our proposals were ultimately accepted and the first NDP budget in history was well received.
This is the kind of balance and compromise people expect from the Parliament they elected. It's not always easy, offering to work with another party to get something done. . . .
I think the Liberals wanted the NDP in a Coalition for entirely different reasons. Not for tying the NDP to a Lliberal agenda.
The Liberals are in the unique situation that they cannot go into an unstable situation of governing. It is just way too risky. Once they are in power they are exposed to the NDP pulling the plug on them. No party ever likes that kind of exposure, but for the liberals it is downright dangerous. An election would see them caught between two well funded and well organized opponents, while they have no money, even severely limited borrowing power, and general organizational infrastructure breakdown.
A coalition is the best way to ensure that the NDP does not seize some quick opportunity to pull the plug.
But what turns out of course is that the instability is along fissure lines in the Liberal party. They all want to get to power, however. But the institution is wedded to taking power when it is handed back to them. But all their failures in that standard 'strategy' leave some of them open for trying other things.
Its not just Iggy that would have continued failing and floundering before they would think of doing something with the NDP. But they weren't asked and now this coalition thing is here.
I agree with Stockholm. Iggy would never have agreed to launch into this- I would say even if it didn't conflict with his leadership train. But now it's here. And if he can become Leader in January, and Harper provides enough excuse to vote them down [or the public has become sufficiently tolerant of the coalition idea].... aw shucks, that bird in the hand looks awful good.
People put WAY too much stock in what everyones ideological proclivities are going to get them to do.
And Spector treats the coalition thing as way too black and white. IF the Coalition happens, the threat that the NDP pulling the plug on the Liberals does not leave. Doesn't matter how many cabinet seats: if the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement on policy doesn't deliver the goods, and what the NDP wants has popular support [which is a safe bet for the amount and type of stimulus the NDP will want], the NDP can pull the plug.
Yes, the NDP would be under a lot of pressure to conform to the Liberals dance, but it will cut the other way as well. If the NDP is not satisfied and thinks it has popular backing, the Liberals are going to have to swallow a lot of policy actions they don't like and fears about longer term damage that Coalition actions can do to them with Lib/Cons swing voters.
In fact, I doubt the Coalition could ever win a free vote among Liberal MPs. It has a chance because whoever is leading and their coterie has a shot at the brass ring. Iggy won't jump at it like the hapless Dion, but he isn't going to pass it up for the very uncertain chance to get it the way that conforms to carboad cut-out Iggy character.
A coalition is the best way to ensure that the NDP does not seize some quick opportunity to pull the plug....
[BUT]
IF the Coalition happens, the threat that the NDP pulling the plug on the Liberals does not leave. Doesn't matter how many cabinet seats: if the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement on policy doesn't deliver the goods, and what the NDP wants has popular support [which is a safe bet for the amount and type of stimulus the NDP will want], the NDP can pull the plug.
Well, now you're contradicting yourself.
Here's the way it really works:
The NDP would have a "legitimate" reason to pull the plug if the Liberals don't conform to the very limited and vague policy agenda set out in the coalition agreement. But on all other issues, the NDP would have no legitimacy in killing the Koalition before the 2½ years are up. You don't give a government 2½-year carte blanche support and then tear up the carte blanche. That destroys your credibility.
Suppose the Iggy Liberals do all the things they said they'd do in the Koalition Kontract, but also make a deal with Obomba to send more troops to Afghanistan and promise to stay till 2013. That's not covered by the policy promises made in the Koalition agreement; it falls under the NDP's carte blanche promise not to move or support non-confidence for 2½ years. Pulling the plug over that would be a breach by the NDP of the Kontract.
Having the legal/moral right to pull the plug if the Liberals fail to deliver on what they promised is a characteristic of any tactical "Accord" on policy; it doesn't require a coalition agreement signed in blood.
The difference with a coalition agreement is that, as long as the Liberals do what they promised within the vague generalities set out in the agreement, the NDP is morally obliged to support (nay - defend) them on everything else!
And that's why the Liberals wanted a coalition agreement. Not because they want the NDP to have token representation in Cabinet, but because they are deathly afraid of an election happening in the next 2½ years. The NDP is giving them the comfort level they require.
Getting Things Done (Nov. 7, 2005)
If the NDP and the Bloc had made the deal with Martin that they have made with Dion, Paul Martin would have remained PM until this year. And the NDP would be punished by the voters for being Martin's lapdogs.
But they didn't. They retained the freedom to "pull the plug" on Martin despite the economic promises Martin made in the accord.
Why would the NDP give the unpopular Dion, the traitor Rae, or the torture-defending Iggy more support than they were willing to give Mr. Dithers in order to keep the evil Harper at bay?
Getting Things Done (Nov. 7, 2005)
If the NDP and the Bloc had made the deal with Martin that they have made with Dion, Paul Martin would have remained PM until this year. And the NDP would be punished by the voters for being Martin's lapdogs.
But they didn't. They retained the freedom to "pull the plug" on Martin despite the economic promises Martin made in the accord.
Why would the NDP give the unpopular Dion, the traitor Rae, or the torture-defending Iggy more support than they were willing to give Mr. Dithers in order to keep the evil Harper at bay?
The NDP did not pull the plug on Martin's Liberals. Martin called an election earlier than was necessary by several months. The NDP wasnt anywhere near the Liberal government when it fell aprart after several scandals undermined the country's confidence in their ability to lead. In 2004, Harper himself wrote a letter to GG proposing that a coalition of Reform Party retreads, rightwing Liberals, and Mike Harris castoffs form the federal government, if Martin's Liberal government failed.
Coalition Fondue Set
[edited to update the expired hyperlink]
Not so fast with that coalition...
The call for a coalition has a broader context; there has been muttered debate within NDP circles for at least a couple of years about whether it makes sense to maintain the party as a separate entity, or whether it should merge into the Liberals. That discussion reflects the steady NDP drift to the political centre, the abandonment of most vestiges of socialism in its program, and the resultant narrowing of the ideological space between the two parties.
The pro-coalition push within the NDP has not only stemmed from that dialogue, but has in turn injected the merger option with greater momentum. Even if the immediate demand is for a parliamentary coalition to defeat Harper's minority government, if that were achieved the obvious next question would be what the point is in operating as two parties. In that scenario, they would presumably avoid running candidates against each other at election time, and they would advance and apply a common program as government.
Not so fast with that coalition...
When have US "Liberal Democrats" ever had to consider coalition with a third political party? Their labour unions were lied to and betrayed by US Liberals same as our's. The NDP can't make things worse for Canadian labour.
Those Canadians who are interested in change and who do bother to vote need rewarding for their efforts at some point. Our voter turnouts are already bad enough with two US-style right wing parties in Ottawa. We don't need to drift aimlessly toward US-style voter turnouts as well. FPTP has punished voters for too long. We need a fluke electoral victory somewhat in our favour for the first time in a long time. Canadian politics have drifted to the right, but now the two oldest parties are unsure of themselves and counting their lucky stars in hope that the phony majority gods will kick another one their way. It might not happen. Then what?
Thanks for reviving this thread, M. Spector. Those were exciting days for us all.
sounds like the Liberals fond imanginings, with a good healthy dose of propaganda, as opposed to "mutterings in NDP circles".
The call for a coalition has a broader context; there has been muttered debate within NDP circles for at least a couple of years about whether it makes sense to maintain the party as a separate entity, or whether it should merge into the Liberals. That discussion reflects the steady NDP drift to the political centre, the abandonment of most vestiges of socialism in its program, and the resultant narrowing of the ideological space between the two parties.
The pro-coalition push within the NDP has not only stemmed from that dialogue, but has in turn injected the merger option with greater momentum. Even if the immediate demand is for a parliamentary coalition to defeat Harper's minority government, if that were achieved the obvious next question would be what the point is in operating as two parties. In that scenario, they would presumably avoid running candidates against each other at election time, and they would advance and apply a common program as government.
Interesting in its own right to bump this thread back into sight.
But the article has nothing to do with "Accord versus Coalition". Calling it sloppy thinking is charitable.
Just in that short bit already quoted upthread, let alone the whole article, there are numerous fallacies that the argument is built on.
For one thing, a governing coalition does not mean not running candidates against each other. Of course it means a commo progream for governing. Duh. Apparently he is conflating a governing coalition with what some people call a 'coalition' of parties for an election. They are two entirely differnt things. [And nomenclature wise, the latter is an 'alliance' as it was in the UK before the Libs and Social Democrats merged.]
Not only are they entirely different things, the idea of alliance is not being discussed in the NDP. Duncan Cameron and presumably a few other members floating some form of the idea around does not make for a discussion. There isn't one.
Having an alliance of parties, going into an election, does indeed strongly tend to lead to a meger. The UK Libs and Social Dems were explicitly on that track when they forged the alliance. And it is precisely for that reason that Dippers who know why an alliance really amounts to, are simply not interested.
But then, if we take Jim's Quail's concerns at face value- he has nothing to worry about, because the push for merger is his own fantasy.
There's a Honda Accord, but no Honda Coalition. hmmmm.......
I think we need a Spanish style popular front to oppose rising neofascism in the Puerto Rico del Norte.
There's a Honda Accord, but no Honda Coalition. hmmmm.......
You've been wanting to say that for over 2 years, haven't you? C'mon, admit it!
I think Boomer must be right. I've never seen one.
There's a Honda Accord, but no Honda Coalition. hmmmm.......
You've been wanting to say that for over 2 years, haven't you? C'mon, admit it!
You know me too well.
Are Canadians more conservative? No
As long as we have FPTP there's going to be pressure to move toward a two-party system.
Are Canadians more conservative? No
By 55 per cent to 41 per cent, Canadians believe the tax system is “unfair” to ordinary Canadians, but they are overwhelmingly willing to think taxes are a public good to provide a good quality of life. By an astonishing 90 per cent to 4 per cent, Canadians believe they have a better quality of life than Americans.
And just imagine how Canadians would feel about their country if they actually received EU-15 or Scandinavian style social programs in return instead of observing Tories and Liberals dinging up national debt followed by a decades of austerity at a time paying debt service charges needlessly to their banking friends. Our's will be a real country some day. We just have to do a little house cleaning in Ottawa is all, as in "clean sweep" with a new broom.
Consideing that social democratic countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Noway, Switzerland, lead most international comparisons of countries, the NDP could use these countries as models for the kind of place that Canada should be.
The NDP should show Canadians that social democratic places in the world exist that are rated as having the best economies and while also having very low rates of poverty. Places that have accessible education, early childhood education, universal child care, and adequate housing, etc... for all. Places where foodbanks are unknown. Maybe some of the NDP`s campaign ad should feature such social democratic success stories?
As it is many Canadians think the NDP represents radical untried ideas that could not work in the real world.
You're living in the past, JKR. The social democratic utopias of Scandinavia were short-lived illusions.
Neo-liberalism Preys on Nordic Welfare Systems
All five of the Nordic countries, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and Denmark are experiencing rising poverty, long considered eradicated but now causing concern to policy-makers....
Hidden from public view there is apparently a sweeping undercurrent of social exclusion affecting large sections of populations in the Nordic countries.
All of the Nordic have been hit by rising unemployment with the possible exception of Norway...
According to Wahl, the poverty rate in Norway is 12 percent if one goes by the European Union's definition of poverty which means earning less than 60 percent of the median income in the society.
Oil-rich Norway with fewer than five million inhabitants has had a booming economy for the decade preceding the global financial crisis.
"So Norwegian society is getting wealthier while there is increasing poverty", Wahl told IPS.
The situation is similar in Finland. The previously low rate of relative poverty has doubled among adults and tripled among children, said Markus Jäntti professor of economics at the Institute of Social Research at Stockholm University.
"It is a great achievement of the social democratic parties which were responsible for eradicating poverty but are also the very ones who have reintroduced poverty" remarked Jäntti....
"The work incentive programme was essentially driven by neo-liberalism or by right-wing populism but there is little evidence that it produced any increase in work attachment. But since the programme failed to work no one is drawing the obvious conclusion that there is something wrong with our social policy", he said.
The controversial work incentive programme - also known as workfare, and first introduced in the United States which viewed unemployment as stemming from people's inherent unwillingness to work - has now become the reigning model in most European countries. Critics say it deliberately keeps people under the poverty line and does not address the root causes of unemployment-related poverty....
In the immediate post-World War II period, according to Wahl, the well developed Nordic welfare states came into being as a result of social struggles based on popular mobilisation in confrontation with the counter-forces which led to a great part of the economy taken off the market and made subject to democratic control.
Capital was tightly regulated, labour legislation was introduced, there was regulation of investment, credit control and the maintenance of a huge public sector, as well as a fixed exchange rate.
But in the 1970s up to the 1990s all that changed with the emergence of neo-liberalism. There was redistribution of wealth from the public into private hands and from the poor to the rich - characterised by a growing gap between high and low income earners - and a source of discontent among the population.
When the neo-liberal offensive was launched in the 1980s and 1990s the left political parties which were responsible for the welfare reforms also drifted to the right.
All of these Nordic countries are currently under right-wing political parties, except in Norway where the ruling coalition is made of Centre Left parties - the so-called Red-Green coalition.
"The social democratic parties started moving to the right and became soft neo-liberal parties...."
Well if this is anything to go by, net social expenditure as a percentage of GDP, Canada is a bastion of neoliberal ideology compared to Nordic countries rating better national health statistics, more competitive economies, and lower rates of poverty even by European standards than Canada since Mulroney Chretien, Martin and now Harper.
The real myth is that the neoliberal voodoo is working in Canada. Jim Stanford paints a far less rosy picture of Canada's economy than private sector economists and right wing politicians have described to Canadians.
These countries, even when led by right of centre governments, are still well ahead of Canada in areas such as child care, early childhood education, anti-poverty initiatives, access to all levels of education, environmemntal programs, taxation, income inequality, women's rights, democratic choice, etc....
Right of centre governments in these countries have in most part kept the social programs established by previous social democratic governments. Hopefully these countries will return social democratic parties to power as part of a retrenching of their social programs.
Because these countries have proportional representation they are never saddled with far right governments as is common with FPTP - e.g. Thatcher, Reagan, GW Bush, Harper etc....
Yes, with real electoral systems like Nordic countries have, the arrogance of Conservative and Liberal parties tends to fade. Elections in Europe and Scandivia are more competitive and tend to produce governments that listen to their constituents for fear of being turfed the next time around. Democracy gaps in the five or so English speaking neoliberalized countries are now gaping divides in comparison with Nordic social democracies. In those countries, they understand why they pay high taxes and actually receive something in return. Here the bastards want to raise consumption taxes in bad times in order to make up for deficits due to their own failed ideology. Where do we even start with the lopsided comparisons?
It's hilarious to see social democrats so far in denial about the demise of the Scandinavian welfare state that they feel they have to become apologists for the right wing governments of those countries who have been dismantling the welfare state for the past 40 years.
Yeah we better not even think about Nordic social democracy. It's no better than Canada under a 35 year-old neolib stoogeaucracy. lol
It's hilarious to see social democrats so far in denial about the demise of the Scandinavian welfare state....
The demise of the Scandinavian welfare state has been greatly exaggerated. The next decade or so will tell the tale whether these social democratic countries slide into mediocrity. That being said, these countries are still the world's leaders in human development. The NDP should be proud to say to Canadians that social democracies are the world's leaders in human development.
And even if these social democracies would slide toward mediocrity, they would likely be the first countries in the world to attempt more radical solutions to establish social equality because social democracy has left these countries with an indelible social conscience.
We have seen one of the fastest and biggest waves of privatization of public property in Europe. We have a totally privatized pension system that is completely dependent on the stock market.
The school system has in effect been dismantled since the beginning of the 1990s. The quality of the public schools has deteriorated as a result of financial starving. Private schools (funded by tax-money) are where most pupils and students from middle-class and upper-class families study nowadays. The privatization of public health care is speeding up.
The rise of the welfare state was due to the class struggles in the 1920s and 1930s. Sweden had more strikes and mass struggles than any other European country. This resulted in a high level of organization and a class consciousness that survived well into 1970s. But it is rapidly waning and going away.
There is no major struggle against cutbacks, privatization, the suffering of low-wage workers from other countries, and precarious working conditions.
It was also necessary (for the rulers) to keep the welfare state as long as the USSR existed. Otherwise, the Swedish capitalist class feared a revolution like the one in 1917. (We had an uprising/revolution in Sweden that ended with full and equal voting rights and a social democratic government.)
The Swedish welfare state was also heavily dependent on exports, and Sweden still is. What happens in Germany and the U.S. (the biggest trading partners) is for that reason very important to the Swedish economy.
The Swedish transnational companies have always been known for aggressiveness. The family that owns most of the Swedish transnational companies (such as ABB, Ericsson, Electrolux, Atlas-Copco, Stora Enso), the Wallenberg family, is one of the world's most powerful capitalist dynasties. They grew to this importance because of the class collaboration that existed between the end of the 1930s and the beginning of 1980s.
The social democrats guaranteed welfare for the people and profit for the rich. The price was lowered class consciousness and a paternalistic society where the social democrats provided benefits as long as you voted for them. Real class struggle was in reality forbidden, as strikes have been, and are in fact, illegal since an agreement between the trade unions and the employers in the 1930s. As a consequence, class consciousness fell-and the result is not much struggle against the neo-liberal policies imposed by social democratic as well as right-wing governments.
Source
See also: Norway's Dirty Little Secrets
I'm on board with any action that will turf the Reform Party,bring the country back to a sane centre and if the NDP can monopolize with an accord and force some left leaning policies,that would be a HUGE bonus.
Yes we all yearn for the good old "sane" days of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin.
I hated both of them...Paul Martin was bad but next to Harper,Chretien was Che Gueverra
A Che Guevara with a mean handshake. What's afta NAFTA?
M. Spector--Perhaps you know of some countries with less economic inequality than Sweden or Norway?
M. Spector's right I was just doing a little reading up on how the Nordic countries are mirror images of the neoliberal setup here in the Puerto Rico del Norte:
Sweden's current account balance: surpluses since 1995 Apparently our corrupt stooges in Ottawa need some help with addition and subtraction
Sweden proves neoliberals wrong about how to slash poverty. But Brown isn't listening Monbiot 2005
Norway's Petroleum/Pension Fund $512B USD socially responsible investing Nordic style. Making Canada look like "a corrupt petro state" by comparison.
Economic, environmental, and social statistics: OECD
Freely accessible PSE for all Swedes, Norwegians, Finlanders and Danes(Google)
High voter turnouts in Denmark Election rigging no doubt
Infant mortality in Sweden? 2.3/1000
Virtually indistinguishable if it wasn't for a few minor diffs with universal daycare, education, and unionized labour rates, and so on. But otherwise, they have pretty much the same weather for a few months a year. And they play winter sports there, too. Our corrupt stoogeaucracy in Ottawa compares fairly well on closer look.
No I don't believe that at all.
I believe the Liberals would prefer to have all the cabinet positions.
I believe the only reason they agreed to let the NDP have a (disproportionately small) 25% of the cabinet seats was that it was the price demanded by Layton for handing them a blank cheque for 2½ years. (Maybe he demanded more seats, but Dion bargained him down, who knows?)
Brian Topp's memoir confirms that the NDP wanted more Cabinet seats and the Liberals wanted them to have fewer.
November 29, 2008: "We wanted seven cabinet seats out of twenty-four. The last Liberal offer was three....In principle, we wanted enough of a team to have at least one minister from every region of the country. One from BC, one from the Prairies, one from Toronto (Layton) [as Deputy PM], one from either Northern or industrial Ontario; one from Quebec; one from the Atlantic."
November 30, 2008: The Liberals offered five seats; Topp countered with six, including Deputy PM. Broadbent met with Chretien and they agreed on six, with no Deputy PM. Their recommendations to their respective parties were accepted.
And that's how the accord ended up with NDP getting 6 out of 24 cabinet seats.
No deals! Screw the Liberals!
I'd rather make a deal with the Liberals than have 4 extra years of Conservative phony FPTP government.
Hopefully the NDP will win a majority in 2015 but if that's not in the cards, the only way the NDP will govern will be with the cooperation of another party or parties that doesn't include the Conservatives.
Chretien and Martin are a dream team next to the garbage we have now.
The NDP will not win a majority...But a coalition CAN.
Well considering that you think the lib team is garbage presently, it makes even more sense that the NDP will majority. I mean who votes or wants garbage? And personally, Martin was a slimy piece of work - corporate steam ship master with his crew flying under a foreign flag so they didn't have to pay benefits and pension plans for their labour - now that's slimy.
Chretien and Martin are a dream team next to the garbage we have now.
The NDP will not win a majority...But a coalition CAN.
I agree with you in regards to Paul Martin...I didn't like Chretien either...And I do not support the Libs because they are ball-less liars.
But I can't recall a more divisive,destructive gang of bastards like the 'Conservatives'
They got to go at any and all costs.
And if that means voting Liberal.Rhino or Doug Hennig's old party then sobeit.
Do you really believe the NDP can win a majority on their own?
I wish but let's be realistic,please.
At this point,a coalition would defeat Harper---effortlessly...And it would be a REAL majority--over 50%!
well Alan I beg to disagree with you. Chretien with Martin as the finance minister brought in more unprogressive economic changes than Mulroney only dreamed of. Not sure what yu mean by coalition but that is decided after an election and not before.
Great points Jan. Chreiten and Martin got away with murder !(can I say that word?)
Chretien with Martin as the finance minister brought in more unprogressive economic changes than Mulroney only dreamed of.
I agree with you. But what's the point of that comment? That you can only form coalitions with nice people? First of all, replace "Mulroney" by "Harper", and see how your statement reads. Next, replace "Chrétien and Martin" by "Liberal-NDP coalition", and see if it still reads the same.
Notwithstanding all the terrible cuts that Paul Martin had brought about as Finance Minister and Prime Minister, Jack Layton met with him in spring of 2005 and agreed to support the Liberal budget, and in fact prop up the Liberal government, in exchange for concessions. That deal lasted for about six months. Was that wrong? If Paul Martin had agreed to some NDP cabinet seats, would Layton have been forced to say, "No, you're worse than Mulroney"?
Interesting point. Why does that have to be the case?
There's really not much point in discussing this until after the next election. Neither party is in a position yet to think it needs the other.
The Liberals made cuts...They didn't GUT services.
To state that Chretien and Martin were worse than Harper is delusional at best.
The NDP and Liberals must put this country ahead of their parties and MERGE.
Fact is,if they merged a year ago,there'd be no Harper government today....also fact that a merger would guarantee the Cons will be shown the door in 2015.
How can anyone think that past governments were worse than these fascist bastards---including Mulroney.
What's so hard to understand about this?
Well alan, I let facts get in the way of passion. In fact, Chretien and Martin brought in cuts and gutted services in which Mulroney wanted to do but as a "conversative" couldn't get away with without being branded as a hard nosed and uncaring "conservative". Meanwhile the Chretien govt of 1993 got elected on a platform of "jobs jobs jobs", universal childcare, getting rid of the GST, and rejigging NAFTA, and guess what, they did none of those things and restructured social programs, cuts to provincial transfers and so on. Oh, and they took the unemployment money and used it to balance their books - that was workers' $$$.
It wasn't until 2006 and a minority govt, after building a surplus, and giving lots of corporate give aways that they actually had to do anything progressive. I guess you forgot who kept Harper in minority govt up until the 2011 election - eg. it was not the NDP.
Alan I don't want Canada to become what is going on in the states - republican and democratic with just some light really between them.
Unionist, a coalition in my view happens after an election, an accord is an agreement that happens before.
I don't want to be accused of being a Liberal---I'm not...I always vote NDP as I would if there was a provincial NDP party in Quebec which we all know there isn't (I have no idea why since Quebec NEEDS a provincial NDP)
I'm simply stating that Harper has to go and this will never happen with so called 'progressives' choosing not to vote and believing that the NDP can somehow win a majority without merging with the Liberals.
I think we're all on the same team,I just do not buy the notion that this country has ever (atleast in my lifetime) had a more divisive,deceitful,un-Canadian government as the current regime we are stuck with.
Of course PR would probably give the NDP majority numbers,PR is not going to happen any time soon.
I'm with you,I don't want a 2 party system like the Americans but we are dealing with a fascist government right now and we should be working on ridding such a government from ever attaining power again.
I'd rather a merger than a civil war.
Unionist, a coalition in my view happens after an election, an accord is an agreement that happens before.
Ok. Personally, I'd like to see a strategy to defeat Harper that has some chances of success. Full disclosure: I consider Harper's regime to be many times worse than what we experienced under Chrétien and Martin.
Jack Layton negotiated a deal with Paul Martin in spring of 2005 to support the budget if it contained certain NDP demands. I thought that was a great idea, in principle.
Jack Layton spearheaded an attempted coalition in December 2008 to defeat the Harper regime. I enthusiastically supported that.
Could we try to imagine an accord before the next election, to prevent Harper from winning another majority? Because if we wait till after, and he wins another majority, it will be too late for a coalition - right?
What do you think of Nathan Cullen's cooperation scheme, unionist?
What do you think of Nathan Cullen's cooperation scheme, unionist?
His particular proposal is a non-starter for me primarily because "progressive" isn't good enough to stand for office - you have to swear allegiance to the federation. If I applied that criterion in the union movement, we wouldn't have one. If you want Quebecers to appreciate Canada, let them figure out its worth through experience - not by requiring loyalty oaths as a prerequisite for unity. Cullen's proposal, in that sole respect, would drag the (CCF-)NDP into the deserved wilderness in which it roamed in Québec for 73 years.
Suppose we subtract that criterion. Then we could have an interesting discussion about how to Stop Harper and do something forward-looking, at least in the electoral forum.
The problem with having that discussion here is partisan politics - "partisan" not in the sense of being on the side of workers or women or the poor etc., but in the sense of "[fill in the name of your party] right or wrong!". The discussion degenerates quickly. People remind you of how the Liberals always break promises, as if you were born yesterday and don't know how rotten their governments have been. They don't allow for the fact that there may be individual Liberal/Green/Bloc/other voters who are just as progressive-minded as we think we are in many significant respects - maybe more. Then they tell you how bad the Greens are, as if they're all one colour. Then they tell you the Bloc are traitors to Canada, but even if we're broadminded and ally with them, the stupid Canadian electorate will tar and feather us if we appear in the same photo as one of them. Then when you remind them of the trail of broken promises and neoliberal agendas and betrayals of working people committed by many NDP provincial governments, and say: "... but I'm still prepared to unite with them, so what's your problem with Greens, Liberals, Bloc, etc.?" - the shit hits the fan.
In short, LP, what's the point of having that discussion here? It just leads to fireworks.
Having said that, let's get back to Cullen's proposal for a moment, because I don't really understand it. My bad, I guess. Here's what he says:
What does that mean? Which banner? Who would decide? Would it automatically be the party banner of the individual that happens to be nominated? Would it have to be that? Why not a new banner - one that reflects very specifically the progressive coalition (or whatever you want to call it) aimed at stopping Harper? If the Elections Act can't handle that, maybe they could all run as Independents with that informal banner?
That way, dyed-in-the-wool Liberals/NDPers/Greens/Bloquistes/Cons wouldn't have to go against their religion by casting a ballot for a rival party. A member of the NDP wouldn't actually be violating the NDP constitution, for example, by supporting another party.
Just thinking out loud here.
ETA: In case anyone is actually reading this rambling post, I should of course add the obvious, namely, that after the election, the "Independents" would join with willing partners to form a coalition government if Harper doesn't win a majority. And his chances of a majority would naturally be greatly reduced by such joint nomination contests.
I think it could make sense in the Cullen proposal to designate joint-nominated candidates as distinct - whether the ballot would say "Joint NDP-Liberal Green Nomination", or "Coalition" or whatever.
I think it would also be important to decide - if the joint nominee is going to represent voters who would have voted for any of 3 or more parties, what are their responsibilities post-election? Should a joint nominee agree in advance not to side with the Conservatives on a specific list of policy issues even when Liberals do? Should they be up-front about which issues they *would* side with Conservatives on if the Liberals do? Should a joint nominee promise not to sit with one party's caucus post-election, or should they clearly define which caucus they will sit with?
Would a joint nomination perhaps be best suited for people who are not actually members of any of the federal parties but who share the aim of a progressive coalition? There are a lot of popular local municipal politicians across the country who fit this description and could do well. Perhaps a Vision Vancouver type could be the one to land a solid defeat of Wai Young in whatever the new Vancouver South will look like.
In regards to Quebec - there aren't very many Conservative held ridings there in the first place, so that limits the number of seats it'd apply to in the first place. Even if Cullen hadn't specifically excluded the Bloc, I am doubtful that residents of those ridings would end up opting for the joint nomination.
In regards to Quebec - there aren't very many Conservative held ridings there in the first place, so that limits the number of seats it'd apply to in the first place. Even if Cullen hadn't specifically excluded the Bloc, I am doubtful that residents of those ridings would end up opting for the joint nomination.
That's hardly the point. It's Cullen's insistence that joint candidates be "federalist" which is the problem. Why not just omit that and let people choose whom they want, without professions of allegiance to the current federation?
As for the rest of your post, it's all food for an interesting discussion, although I don't think the ballot could indicate anything except either a legally registered party, or "independent". Unfortunately, Cullen's proposal never got off the ground, because of all the reasons we know - so none of these issues have been fleshed out - at least, as far as I know.
Should a joint nominee promise not to sit with one party's caucus post-election, or should they clearly define which caucus they will sit with?
Doesn't the NDP already have a policy against floor-crossing? Wouldn't running as an independent and then joining the NDP (or Liberal) caucus violate that policy, unless the member resigns and runs in a byelection for the party he or she wants to sit with?
No one needs to join anyone else's caucus. The whole point is to have a coalition after the election (unless Harper wins a majority). They need to agree to vote together and form a government together. Everyone would be running on that program, so there's no surprise to the electors.
What do you think of my tweak on Cullen's proposal, Spector?
In India they have had to deal with this problem [aka FPTP] too. They've dealt with FPTP by having opposition parties put up common candidates.
India - First Past the Post on a Grand Scale
The major effect of the electoral system, at least until 1977, was to guarantee majority governments based on a minority of voter support. The FPTP electoral system resulted in the ruling Congress party securing stable majorities in the Lok Sabha, usually against a fragmented opposition. But since 1977, when the opposition parties combined to form coalitions and started putting up common candidates against the Congress candidates (as was the case in the 1977 and 1989 general elections), the Congress majorities have vanished.
I think Unionist's idea of common anti-Harper candidates running as independents is a very good one. I would suggest a few more refinements.
1. A central plank of the coalition platform should be to bring in P.R. during the first term, so that the common candidate stratagem would only be necessary for one election.
2. The common candidates chosen could be individuals who have not been active members of any political party, but who are well known and respected in their communities. Thus none of the party cadres would have to feel that they were being forced to vote for "the enemy".
3. The common candidates could agree beforehand to only run once. Thus, there would be no fear of long term effects on the balance between the cooperating parties.
I really think something like this could work. Too bad it seems very unlikely to happen.
This could be the start of something big.
Last Thursday, we sent a message to the whole Leadnow community. We asked if you would support political cooperation between the NDP, Liberals and Greens to defeat the current government in the next election, and then pass electoral reform. Almost 10,000 responded. 95% said yes, with an astounding 72% “strongly agreeing”.[1]
Now, as the NDP and Liberals choose their new leaders, we urgently need to turn that incredible support into real action.
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation
As I said before, a pre-election alliance is interesting in theory, but in practice would be an option for the NDP in only seven ridings:
Ottawa-Orleans (where PSAC endorsed Liberal David Bertschi last May), Ajax-Pickering (this may explain why Mark Holland is supporting PR, he might in theory pull this off), Don Valley West (where the NDP ran an invisible place-holder last May and the Conservative won by 611 votes, were we already doing an informal alliance?), Eglinton-Lawrence, Etobicoke Centre, Mississauga South, and Yukon (unlikely). That's it. If the Liberals stood down in six or seven as well, would that be revolutionary? But first the Liberals would have to support proportional representation, which only a minority of them do today.
I'm with Wilf on this one and agree with what he said above. ALL OF IT.
I'm going to respond to Michael's suggestions now:
1. A central plank of the coalition platform should be to bring in P.R. during the first term, so that the common candidate stratagem would only be necessary for one election. NOT INFORCEABLE
2. The common candidates chosen could be individuals who have not been active members of any political party, but who are well known and respected in their communities. Thus none of the party cadres would have to feel that they were being forced to vote for "the enemy". SORRY BUT THEY'D HAVE TO INSPIRE SOMEONE
3. The common candidates could agree beforehand to only run once. Thus, there would be no fear of long term effects on the balance between the cooperating parties. ha ha ha - too many in real time examples to dispute that people change their mind - eg. Rae, many newly minted Con senators!
I really think something like this could work. Too bad it seems very unlikely to happen. I don't see this as workable and the political damage far outweights the gain - which is Wilf pointed out about is 7 SEATS, that's it 7 SEATS!
I really think something like this could work. Too bad it seems very unlikely to happen. I don't see this as workable and the political damage far outweights the gain - which is Wilf pointed out about is 7 SEATS, that's it 7 SEATS!
Well, seven if we pick up the seven where the Liberals might stand down. And seven the other way around. Makes 14 less Conservatives. Might tip the balance. But pretty hypothetical at this stage.
And that's on the old boundaries. When we have the new boundaries, and Elections Canada calculates the transposition of votes, there might be another few where the NDP would have no hope and could stand down, and maybe four more the other way in BC. Cullen's plan makes the most sense in BC.
But at this point, I think the best stance is to say "we aren't slamming the door on co-operation. We even tried to make Dion Prime Minister, and Ignatieff spent the last campaign bragging that he turned us down. The public wants parties to work together, and we've always been willing to do that. Let's wait and see if the Liberals are really interested." That's actually what the majority voted in Vancouver in June. Cullen's campaign has not been clear enough on this, although I think they're trying.
I'm with Wilf on this one and agree with what he said above. ALL OF IT.
Good! So you agree with this part:
So do I. I'd like to find a way to Stop Harper. What do you think of cooperation at the riding level to do that?
Er, by the way, contrary to Wilf's "7 riding" theory, people don't always vote the same way in 2015 as they do in 2011, nor in 2011 the way they do in 2008. When something happens to inspire them, they may radically and overwhelmingly change their minds. Have a look at what swept Québec on May 2. Now imagine if we invite people to forget about "my party right or wrong" for one moment and cooperate at the local riding level - among people who know each other, who work and live and go to school together - for an important cause, the cause of stopping the dismantling of Canada. You might find that such a movement could baffle the number crunchers and produce interesting results in 70 ridings, not 7.
nay Unionist and I liked Wilf's 2nd last post here. I'm just not interested.
No doubt, but the core of Cullen's plan is, the local riding association decides. I found six ridings in Ontario where I can see that as possible. And even some of them might say, as Unionist just said, that people will vote differently in 2015, and therefore they insist on running an NDP candidate. Certainly Mulcair has repeatedly made the point that, if Cullen's plan had been in effect in the last election, the majority of our Quebec caucus would not even have run.
Cullen's plan makes the most sense in BC. In return for the NDP agreeing to ask its ridings to consider the plan, BC Liberal ridings would also consider it; and that could result in a single candidate (NDP) winning the following ridings if we were still on the present boundaries: Nanaimo-Alberni, Vancouver Island North, and maybe Fleetwood-Port Kells; with a shot at Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, Kootenay-Columbia and Okanagan-Coquihalla, and maybe even Cariboo-Prince George, Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission and Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam. On the new boundaries, several more.
One problem is, voters don`t watch closely enough. If they hear the Liberals and NDP are co-operating, they may switch their vote the wrong way where both parties are running.
It`s all premature until the Liberals express willingness to co-operate on terms that include proportional representation. I`m just making two points:
1. Not slamming the door on the Liberals is a good stance.
2. If we were to actually do it, there are few ridings where the local NDP would ever stand down.
But at this point, I think the best stance is to say "we aren't slamming the door on co-operation. We even tried to make Dion Prime Minister, and Ignatieff spent the last campaign bragging that he turned us down. The public wants parties to work together, and we've always been willing to do that. Let's wait and see if the Liberals are really interested." That's actually what the majority voted in Vancouver in June. Cullen's campaign has not been clear enough on this, although I think they're trying.
Oh, I think I disagree with that.
Why should this strategy depend on whether or not the Liberals are interested?
I never really understood the detail of Cullen's approach, but maybe we should fill them in ourselves.
Forget about the Liberal Party - go after the Liberals. And Greens. And Bloquistes. And others too, why not. Reach out locally. If there's agreement on a candidate, run her for her party - if her party says "no" to this process, then run her as an anti-Harper Independent. Lots of room for refinement of this approach, no?
Cullen's plan makes the most sense in BC. In return for the NDP agreeing to ask its ridings to consider the plan, BC Liberal ridings would also consider it; and that could result in a single candidate (NDP) winning the following ridings if we were still on the present boundaries: Nanaimo-Alberni, Vancouver Island North, and maybe Fleetwood-Port Kells; with a shot at Kamloops-Thompson-Cariboo, Kootenay-Columbia and Okanagan-Coquihalla, and maybe even Cariboo-Prince George, Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge--Mission and Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam. On the new boundaries, several more.
One problem is, voters don`t watch closely enough. If they hear the Liberals and NDP are co-operating, they may switch their vote the wrong way where both parties are running.
It`s all premature until the Liberals express willingness to co-operate on terms that include proportional representation. I`m just making two points:
1. Not slamming the door on the Liberals is a good stance.
2. If we were to actually do it, there are few ridings where the local NDP would ever stand down.
A particularly contentious riding where the NDP could conceivably be asked if they'd stand down would be Vancouver South (or whatever remains of it). The NDP riding association there, I've heard, is fiercely anti-Liberal. But the idea of jointly nominating someone who is not resolutely tied to either the Liberal or NDP could well be a strategy that wins over the association. I'd suggest George Chow if it weren't for the fact that he's already on their sh!tlist for having supported Dosanjh instead of Meena Wong federally before trying to mount a bid to run for the BCNDP in Vancouver-Fraserview. But maybe someone else on the Vision team (remember there will be another civic election in 2014, so an incumbent could retire).
Should a joint nominee promise not to sit with one party's caucus post-election, or should they clearly define which caucus they will sit with?
Doesn't the NDP already have a policy against floor-crossing? Wouldn't running as an independent and then joining the NDP (or Liberal) caucus violate that policy, unless the member resigns and runs in a byelection for the party he or she wants to sit with?
The spirit of the policy is against electing someone who says they belong to one party and then later goes behind the voter's backs to join the NDP caucus.
If the candidate wins the joint nomination when it's known that they'll sit with the NDP, and says during the election "I have been jointly nominated, and the ballot will reflect this fact, but I am disclosing that I will sit with the NDP caucus", then there is really no deception at all.
So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?
Further questions arise: Why would Liberals and Greens vote for such a candidate?
What happens if the Liberals get more seats than the NDP - would the "Independent" MP sit with the Liberals if the NDP and Liberals don't form a coalition government?
Mulcair is wrong about this. Cullen's plan only involves ridings where the Conservatives are the incumbant and the NDP, Liberals or Greens are in a strong 2nd place position. The 2008 election only saw the Conservatives win 10 seats in Quebec and only 1 of those 10 seats, Pontiac, had a party other than the BQ in 2nd place. In this case the Liberals came a distant second place to the Conservatives. Since more of the 2008 NDP vote in Pontiac would likely go to the BQ instead of the Liberals, and the Liberals were a distant 2nd in Pontiac, Cullen's plan would not have even been applicable in Pontiac.
Under Cullen's plan, the 2011 election would have saw the NDP run 75 candidates in all of Quebec's 75 ridings.
So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?
Local activists of various parties may agree to support the candidate on that condition. There should be flexibility in form. We would want to encourage an anti-Harper alliance, not raise partisan obstacles to one.
So as not to split the anti-Harper vote, obviously. They would vote for such a candidate because active local people of all parties have determined that that's their best opportunity to defeat the Conservative. There are many people out there who want to defeat Harper, but the FPTP system and the multiplicity of parties doesn't facilitate that. That's the whole idea between such pre-election accords. What's the mystery here??
You mean if Harper wins the most seats in a minority situation? Then all pressure must be put on the other parties to form a coalition. If they don't form a coalition, who cares whom the Independent "sits with"? Seating arrangements on the deck of the Titanic? What's your point? This is about Stopping Harper, and we need to do what Brigette DePape declared, which is to find every creative means to accomplish that.
..the number was around 4100 yesterday when i signed the petiton.
Join 7,609 Canadians:
“I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform.
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation
Join 7,609 Canadians: I call on the opposition party leaders to support political cooperation for electoral reform.
http://www.leadnow.ca/cooperation
They may well mean "proportional representation" when they say "electoral reform." But some Liberals signing the petition may think they mean "any reform, including the Preferential Ballot." I'm not signing it until this is clarified.
So you're talking about a candidate who is essentially an NDP candidate in all but name. Why run as a nominal "independent" at all?
Local activists of various parties may agree to support the candidate on that condition.
On what condition - that he or she runs as an "Independent" committed to joining the NDP caucus? Why wouldn't the local activists of various parties just save everyone the trouble and vote NDP, if "not splitting the anti-Harper vote" is so important to them?
My questions were directed to theleftyinvestor, whose absurd proposal prompted them, not at you. Don't try to pretend my questions came out of nowhere.
[...] Why wouldn't the local activists of various parties just save everyone the trouble and vote NDP, if "not splitting the anti-Harper vote" is so important to them? [...]
Same reason that in Vancouver, Vision Vancouver(Liberal/NDP/Green) was re-elected rather than COPE(NDP) or the Green Party of Vancouver. If you want an electoral coalition to work, you tone the partisanship down, and you run on what unites you. Not everyone is excited by the concept of an NDP Majority, even if it boots out the Conservatives.
CFL