Defeat the Conservatives, no Liberal-NDP Coalition!
Defeat the Conservatives, no Liberal-NDP Coalition!
Written by Alex Grant - Fightback Editorial Board www.marxist.ca
Friday, 28 November 2008 With the financial crisis as a backdrop, Stephen Harper’s minority Conservative government may not survive another week. Less than two months after the last election the government is facing a confidence vote on its budget update and all three opposition parties say they will vote against. Rumours are rife of a Liberal-NDP coalition to replace the Conservatives. The Conservatives must be defeated, but there can be no coalition with the bosses’ parties.Yesterday, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tabled a budget update. This had come after several weeks of speculation that Stephen Harper had had a sudden Keynesian conversion towards economic stimulus in the face of the global economic meltdown. However, rather than put forward a statement which mirrored the multi-billion dollar bailouts of the US and Britain, the government tabled a massively optimistic balanced budget achieved off the backs of the working class.
First of all, Flaherty outlined a ban on federal public sector strikes until 2011 and the institution of a 1.5% wage cap. In the words of John Gordon, president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, "It's an affront to free collective bargaining. It's just atrocious." It rips up 2.5% wage increases already agreed by the Canada Revenue Agency and hits against Canada Post and other workers in crown corporations. In addition, where the federal government leads the provinces will follow and this will be used as a model for an attack on the right to strike everywhere.
Second, the government proposes finding $2.3-billion of revenue from privatizing crown corporations and government assets, plus another $2-billion in cuts to public services. They are also planning to gut pay equity legislation. Exactly what will be on the chopping block remains to be seen, but you can guarantee it will not be good for the workers in those corporations or the people who access those services.
These measures are exactly what Fightback predicted. In an article we published on the 8th of September we said, “With the coming downturn the Conservatives are looking to follow the dictates of their corporate masters and institute whole scale attacks on the social wage. The Liberals work for the same people and they would be no different. The bosses will demand that the economic crisis be put squarely on the backs of the working class. There will be cuts in every social program, every small reform that workers wrenched away from the system. Privatization will come to the top of the agenda, probably starting with Canada Post. The last few years of long hours, few rights and poverty wages will seem like a holiday when they are replaced with government and corporate attacks, unemployment and privatization.” Canada Goes to the Polls: Socialist Policies Needed, Fightback Editorial Board.
Poison Pill
However, as well as attacks on the working class, the Conservatives included a nasty poison pill. They proposed to remove the $1.95 per vote political subsidy given out to political parties. The Liberals, the so-called natural party of Canadian capitalism, could probably have stomached the attacks on the workers, “for the good of the country.” However, now the Tories were putting the very existence of the Liberal party at stake. When you are voting to attack the poor that is one thing, but this would mean real pain and hardship for Liberal apparatchiks and that could not be allowed! The Liberals are massively in debt and divided in the run up to their leadership convention. In the last year they were not even able to raise as much money as the NDP. Despite still having the weak and pathetic Stephane Dion at their head the Liberals had no choice but to oppose the budget statement.
The NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals all stated their opposition on the grounds of the lack of economic stimulus in the statement. All three parties have been forced to fight on the high ground of economic policy, no matter if their real motivation is the receipt of money from the public purse. The Conservatives had miscalculated. They thought that they could kick the Liberals while they were down. They hoped that the Liberals, leaderless, would be forced to let the government stand. The latest reports state that the government has removed the campaign finance portion of the bill – however, now they have forced the Liberals on to the high horse of opposing the statement on the grounds of the lack of stimulus, the Liberals will have trouble getting off that horse if there is nothing in this area. The choice is either a massive revision of the economic statement, a massive humiliation of the Liberals, or the government will fall.
If the government loses a vote on a finance bill it is deemed to be a vote of confidence and the government falls. However, it does not necessarily mean that there will automatically be an election. The Governor General, representing the Queen, may turn to the Liberals to see if they can form a government that can win a confidence vote in the House of Commons. We cannot forget that under the Canadian (and British and Australian) constitution it is not the people who decide to form a government, it is the Queen. In the event of a party winning an election on a socialist platform there could be an entirely constitutional coup, where the Queen’s representative appoints an emergency cabinet “until order is restored” and it can be guaranteed that an election would produce the “correct” result.
The prospect of the Liberals being handed power has led to back room discussion about a Liberal-NDP coalition. Former party leaders Jean Chrétien and Ed Broadbent have apparently had a series of discussions. The deal is fraught with contradictions. Who would be Prime Minister? Stephane Dion has no credibility, but the Liberals have not elected a new leader. What would happen to the $50-billion corporate tax cuts that the NDP is committed to reversing? There is no way the Liberals would agree to this and an NDP back-down on this issue would be a complete capitulation. Finally, what would happen to the Canadian troops in Afghanistan? The NDP is committed to immediate withdrawal while the Liberals want to stay and fight until 2011.
Any such coalition with the Liberals would be a huge mistake and a betrayal by the leadership of the NDP. The Liberals are no less of a bosses' party than the Conservatives and have supported an endless list of attacks on the working class. In the present financial crisis the Liberals will be forced to follow the dictates of their corporate masters. Will the NDP leadership throw the Liberals a lifeline in their hour of need, and be dragged down with them, or will the NDP let the bosses’ party sink into a well-deserved watery grave? There is a historic opportunity here to change the balance of forces of Canadian politics and it cannot be thrown away. Let the Liberals and Conservatives take responsibility for the crisis of the capitalist system they defend while the NDP builds support by proposing the only genuine alternative – Socialism.
The NDP is correct to oppose the budget statement, but for the wrong reasons. Economic stimulus and the Keynesian model, in other words bailouts for the banks, is no solution. Deficit financing was tried before and it resulted in the hyper-inflation of the 1970’s. The only way to save jobs of Canadian workers is a socialist economy. Productive plants are being shut down with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. No matter how much money is thrown at these private corporations you cannot artificially create a market for the products out of thin air. Attempting to plan capitalism, while maintaining private ownership, is simply impossible. The only way out is to change the logic of the economy towards production for need and not for profit. By nationalizing these plants, putting them under the democratic control of the workers and integrating them through a democratic plan of production, millions of jobs can be saved and the economy can be run on a rational basis.
Some may say this is too radical and workers will reject it. Recently the Quebec NDP voted for nationalization in the oil and gas sector and this move was led by the striking Petro-Canada workers. Besides, if the choice is between radical action and unemployment and mortgage default, most workers will not support capitalist ideology as they walk to the food bank. Capitalism has shown that it does not work, the British and American governments have effectively nationalized large sections of the banking system in order to save capitalism from itself. All the capitalist theories are being thrown out of the window as useless in practice. The question is not whether nationalization is acceptable, Bush and Brown have shown that it is, the question is whether there is nationalization to bail out the bankers who destroyed the economy, or nationalization for the benefit of the workers who produce all the wealth and really know how to run society.
The coming weeks and months will see incredible turmoil. Sharp turns and sudden changes are on the order of the day. Fightback says, bring down the Conservatives and no coalitions with the Liberals. The NDP must adopt socialist policies to save jobs and lead millions of workers and youth towards the only alternative to capitalist poverty, homelessness, unemployment and war.
Join The Facebook Group: Defeat the Conservatives, no Liberal-NDP Coalition!
Comments
Quote: "
While I fully agree with you about the character of the Liberals, Tommy, I think I fully disagree with your analysis above.
Bob Rae and the ONDP threw a lifeline to the Liberals in 1985. Within five years, they were elected to government - for the first and last time ever. Instead of being a third party, their tactical move declared they were prepared to make temporary compromises to achieve gains for workers and others - just as they did with the "NDP budget" of 2005.
What went wrong? Once in power, they forgot why they wanted to get there. Now that they were first, they decided to act like the Liberals. The voters told them to f*** off, and 13 years later, they are further away from the reins of power than ever.
So, my conclusion from history is different from yours. Canadians don't like political parties much. I'm very Canadian in that way. They want to see courageous individuals standing up in the face of adversity, setting aside partisan kindergarten namecalling and gameplaying, and actually trying to stare down the neocons on some specific questions of life-and-death importance to the people.
If the NDP can do that - hell, if the Bloc can do that - it will secure itself credit that will last it a long time."
This shows a lack of understanding of history, do you live in Ontario by the way? Bob Rae was a Liberal Ideolouge who had no interest in even rudementary social democracy let alone socialism. His motivation for attaching himself to the careerist right wing beaurocracy of the ONDP is unimportant the point is here that he did. He brokered the deal (not a coalition so your example SUCKS) an accord to ask that some concessions from the NDP policy bank be applied in exchange for limited support and not bringing the gov't until 2 years had passed. Rae won because he took the calculated risk of showing himself to be a kinder gentler (liberal) capitalist. this wokred as he was elected with a majority as the market took the growing pains that would become a recession the Liberals lost support as they failed to solve the problems of working people (to the contrary attacked from the right), they had learned some lessons from previous tory gov'ts they came out for change, and they may have had it had Bob Rae been defeated by the left in the conventions and real alternatives to the system been proposed but they none the less voted the lesser evil. Bob Rae was elected. The drive to the right in the party secured 5 long years of Rae days attacks on services and the worst labour legislation in ontario history. the rest is known and irrelevent Rae lost in 95 and we had the Harris-Eves Reaction. Lessons to be learned yes but not the ones you have selectivly learned Unionist.
So it appears some are implying that the NDP should roll the dice to see if they can supplant the liberals when the conservatives are done slicing and dicing them. Great analysis except it seems to leave the voter out of the process. The majority of canadians are never going to become socialists. In this last election in Burnaby when the Liberal vote collapsed it went almost 2 to 1 to the conservatives. There is a very real possibility that if the liberals collapse the next election could see a historic sized conservative majority elected. In most ridings the NDP has always needed a three way race to win under FPTP.
___________________________________________________________________________________________From North of Manifest Destiny
What went wrong? Once in power, they forgot why they wanted to get there. Now that they were first, they decided to act like the Liberals. The voters told them to f*** off, and 13 years later, they are further away from the reins of power than ever.
And you can take what unionist says about the ONDP government with a large grain of salt. He tends to ignore approximately 99% of the facts surrounding our first ONDP government when spamming the board with the exact same anti-ONDP rhetoric each and every time. And his recollection of CCF history isnt too good either.
PNew Democrats are right to be a little apprehensive? Gun-shy? Right now, I feel a fatih in my party and my leader. GO JACK GO!!!
This shows a lack of understanding of history, do you live in Ontario by the way?
No, my friend. I understand history well enough to know that Québec is the place to live! 
I fully agree that his motivation was unimportant - so why exactly did you raise it?
Ummm, I didn't say it was a coalition, did I now? But why don't you like my example? The ONDP made a written contract to prop up the evil Liberals for two years in exchange for some concessions. Was that ok in your book? Why? Because they didn't fill a few cabinet seats? That made them the pure workers' party that exists only in your imagination? So if Layton did the same now, but said "no thanks" to cabinet seats - which is very possibly what Gilles Duceppe will do - that would be OK by you!!??
So you see, even though Rae and the ONDP propped up the Liberals and actually brought them to power, no one blamed them for doing so. Instead, they bloody well ELECTED the NDP for the first and last time in Ontario history. They saw that in adversity, the ONDP was prepared to (at least pretend to) put aside partisan narrowness and try to do something positive for the people.
When the NDP, however, showed that they were exactly the same - if not in fact much worse - than Peterson (liars, promise-breakers, enemies of the workers, false friends of LGBT community, useless at shielding the people from the effects of the crisis etc. etc. etc. etc.) - the people wisely booted their ass to kingdom come.
Not for propping up the Liberals.
Rather, for becoming the Liberals.
It's hard to see that living in Ontario. You have to gaze from a respectful distance to grasp the big picture.
I didnt say they would all become socialists I will venture to say they want alternatives and 2 of 3 canadians is afraid of harper. If the NDP proposed some alternatives to the unemployment line and child poverty and had principals of its own it may make a historic breakthrough in this climate and I find socialist principals are verry popular especially before who your talking to isint having the "S" word thrown at them while you explain why nationalization of gas and oil is benefitial =, planning the economy may avoid catastrophe and workers, farmers and students should have power for themeselves independent of special interests in the elite (or capitalist class as a socialist calls them) Canadians are not a right wing people and your claim has no standing. the NDP has no backing because it poses no alternative to the sufferings of the majority just more of the same.
Ontario voters elected the NDP to a phony majority, like they've done so many times with the two old line parties. I'm afraid 1990 was a fluke, like this 22 percent Liberal dictatorship we have with McGuinty in Toronto today. Ontarians really aren't all that impressed with the Liberals today. No more prosperous cold war economies. And the two old line parties dont understand that they can't do things the old way and expect cold war levels of support. It's gone. The old ways are done.
Quote "
So you see, even though Rae and the ONDP propped up the Liberals and actually brought them to power, no one blamed them for doing so. Instead, they bloody well ELECTED the NDP for the first and last time in Ontario history.
No they were elected in spite of this and it didnt lead to any change. I dont care if the NDP gets elected if it seeks to become the new Liberals.
"They saw that in adversity, the ONDP was prepared to (at least pretend to) put aside partisan narrowness and try to do something positive for the people."
No they saw no alternative.
"When the NDP, however, showed that they were exactly the same - if not in fact much worse - than Peterson (liars, promise-breakers, enemies of the workers, false friends of LGBT community, useless at shielding the people from the effects of the crisis etc. etc. etc. etc.) - the people wisely booted their ass to kingdom come.
Not for propping up the Liberals.
Rather, for becoming the Liberals."
I didnt say that the workers booted them out for backing liberals. they booted them out for not being an alternative. I oppose the coalition on the grounds that the NDP is the labour government (social dem and socialist groups joined to the CLC) this party of the movement and the CLC is not to become a tool in capitalist repression unless it has no principals of its own which I dont believe is true even with the Social Democratic Impotents who lead the party.
"It's hard to see that living in Ontario. You have to gaze from a respectful distance to grasp the big picture."
Know I consider you a comrade in spirit friend but this is a little much. Good luck in Quebec as I see by the papers you will see new invigerated attacks on our class soon with either a Bourgois Federalist or Bourgois Nationalist at the helm.
Haha and I thought the NDP were the unprincipled ones, opting to act on selfish political stategy and not what would be better for the "masses."
Have been thinking deeply whether there should be a formal coalition or not, with the NDP having cabinet positions.
Simply put I have come to the conclusion that I believe much can be done with a formal coalition. Of course the argument can be made it can be done without one, with a mere propping up. However, it would be just another item, or items that the NDP "helped" to get into formal law. The Liberals would wear all the optics.
Furthermore, for one to believe, IMV, that this would hurt the NDP, then one has to believe that the coalition will be doing nothing to assist Canadians, and would do much to hurt them. In fact, I believe it has the potential to do much to assist Canadians. I do not believe in the red herrings thrown out about the NDP's participating in a capitalist system, they already are and would be even more, if they ever were elected, as either Official opposistion or ruling government. Face it, the only way to pull Canada closer to a socialist system is to have the NDP have a significant say, and become conceivable as able to govern the country.
Standing on the sidelines advising on policy is not going to do it. It will render the NDP as a 3rd party for ever. And the Liberals would solely wear the success.
Moreover, allowing Harper to carry on, is not an option. For me it boils down to taking away women's right to wage parity. WTF? It seems the blatently misogyynist CPC want to fuck over women no matter what or how. If they can't do it one way, they will do it another it appears.
Also, this is as close to PR as we are going to get, currently, and people need to grow used to seeing a coalition government, as that is what is going to happen with PR, each and every time.
Furthermore, if we had PR, would the marxist people say then also, that the NDP should NOT be part of a PR coalition government too? Give me a freakin break, all the parties have to work in the current system, trying to be holier than thou, is shooting oneself in the heart, by-passing completely the foot.
Most importantly, if the marxist crowd truly believe in this "non-participation" in a capitalist system, then they would not be running a political campaign in a capitalist system, as they are participating and giving capitalism legitmacy just by their doing that and they would not be taking/getting their 1.95 either. I call bull shit walking.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
It is great to see people having to consider what a PR system would bring us in the reality of governing. PR forces parties to find common ground despite their differences. These negotiations are just a preview of what we would see if we get our dream of PR.
Given that understanding I think something formal is necessary. If it is not formal there is nothing to hold the slippery Liberals to task. It need not be ideological for now. Let's set a few simple priorities - keeping manufacturing jobs, creating new green jobs, investing in senior's needs, putting lots of money and resources into training, and a few other things. Get those done and see where things are at. The simplier the better in terms of issues to tackle and patience will be required by those, like me, that want to see a real NDP government for a bit. Patience and a lot of vigilance.
I agree that it needs to be a formal coalition so the NDP are not seen as propping up the liberals. And Canadians might be very surprised as to how well it can work.
While I agree in principle with some of the things that enemy_of_capital is saying, I think that he (I'm assuming the "Alex Grant" mentioned in the original post is the same person) is basing what he says on either one of two things, neither of which I can agree with:
1. That the NDP would actually have a legitimate chance of forming a majority government if there were an election today. I really don't see how anyone could believe this, since they're clearly not going to win enough seats in Alberta or Quebec for that to be possible, even if they make huge gains elsewhere.
2. The traditional Marxist line that it doesn't really matter what happens today, as long as we get to the ideal society in the end. In this model, the NDP/workers must be willing to sacrifice any chance at power now if it means that they'll overthrow the capitalists in the end. And you know what, as nice as that sounds, there are people who are being tremendously hurt by a Conservative government, and will be even moreso if the Conservatives are allowed to stay in power, and I don't see how any decent human being could just ignore the years of pain that those people are going to go through now.
Am I afraid that the NDP are moving to the centre? Very much so. Do I think it would be OK to pass up a tremendous opportunity to affect some very meaningful change just because it doesn't overthrow the whole system? Absolutely not.
I fully agree with all comments laid out by unionist and Remind.
The exposure of being in Cabinet will be the best thing ever to happen to the federal ndp. If ever PR was conceivable to legislate it would happen in such a government.
Marxists should be grateful at this opportunity for this point alone: If PR goes through under a coalition government, you can possibly get Marxist-Leninist (I'm assuming) seats.
There is so much at stake right now that anything but a formal coalition is a result that would have obscene consequences.
"Bob Rae and the ONDP threw a lifeline to the Liberals in 1985."
David Peterson's Liberals were not on the brink of colapse like the current federal leaders are. They are out of money, can't seem to grasp the idea of fundraising without offering the prospect of lucrative government contracts, and they seem to be doing their best to alienate any progressives that still exist in the party.
"They want to see courageous individuals standing up in the face of adversity, setting aside partisan kindergarten namecalling and gameplaying, and actually trying to stare down the neocons on some specific questions of life-and-death importance to the people. "
As I said in an earlier thread today, McCallum was on CBC radio this morning, soothing the financial people and telling them that a coalition government would be looking after them.
Not much different than what Flaherty is doing already. Solving the problem of too much concentration of wealth by throwing more of our money at rich people.
We have the problem of having one opponent in politics (Tories) , that presents itself in two political parties. (Conservative and Liberal)
Clearly, they have to be taken on one at a time.
Fortune has dropped the Liberals in our laps, and yet there are so many who are determined to grab defeat from the jaws of victory with this coalition.
I think the problem that Tommy refuses to recognise is that you can only replace the liberals if you take a big step to the right and ape their ideas.
And left wing partys can never fundraise like right wing partys. The trickle down right wing religion is one that rich people are happy to fund. Rich people have more money so you can never compete in the holy free market with them. The idea of pissing on plebes (thats why it is called trickle down) is much more appealing than the alternative to them.
Thats the way the world has been for thousands of years. It is you who is trying to grab defeat by allowing the conservatives to defund your party.
Left-wing parties can fundraise effectively if given the right circumstances and motivation. The right circumstances exist in Canada currently unless Harper is allowed to change it, however motivation to properly fundraise with small donations does not yet exist or has not been implemented correctly.
My understanding is that the trickle down economics is what brought us to this place and is already being defeated in many countries right now, so why let Harper give it a lifeline by remaining in power?
Comrades, I say a coaltion government is not a question of principle but of tactics and strategies. We are facing a crisis of capitalism, economically, politically and military. Given the current crisis in canad,, and we are in a economic,political and military crisis in Canada (remember Afghanistan and Iraq and Obama and GM going under and a Byng=King Ontario 1985 parliamentary power shift , with all its legal and democratic and consituional arguments and power plays going on, as the right wing mobilizes its masters and its masses to keep state power, I have some faith in my party and my leader. I beleive Jack is a master strategist putting together an arrangment that is principled and can advance the interests of the working class.
GO JACK GO!!!
Should the NDP and the Liberals pass over this historic opportunity due to finer points of critical importance only to the regular patrons of coffee bars and campus lounges, then we are well and truly lost.
There is time for partisanship and times to set it aside. This is one of those times. Doesn't mean that things should not be watched like a hawk, but this is a time to drive a stake into the Conservative consensus.
What are you talking about Obama is not going to be bad for Canada and its Martin's five year immigration plan that will cause a real problem as home owners are maxed out on their credit do to a speculative market. All that added immigration driving up the house prices well now they are coming down and I'm not sure its wise to bail out these institutions. Why? Because you need them? Or do you? For every door that closes another door will open. Anyway this is stressful when you think of the prospects of a Coalition Government that hasn't a coalition to stand on. The parties who won seats continue to receive their subsidies as Conservatives find some flexibility in their plan. The economy has not quite unraveled here in Canada and the actual effects are an uncertainty as Government waits to put 2008 behind them to better understand the effects the global crisis has had on her economy. I understand were the Conservatives are coming from as its hard to fix something when you don't know the problems for sure. And despite all the crying from the parties how their subsidies had nothing to do with the forming of the Coalition are really stretching it. As apparently the Conservatives believed it was of major important so I guess we Will see if they turn it down say in favor of Freedom of Speech and it should be interesting how they react or don't react. And if they decide to react again I do hope its something beneficial for Canadians and not just them.
And as far as Reagan's trickle down theory well I'm thinking the only think that trickles down is corruption and urine but many he just forgot.
Reagan is symbolic with all that is wrong with capitalism as human lives were traded off as if they were nothing more than annoying squirrels rather than a people who were forced out of institutions and alike all in the name of greed as he plays to a people by telling them how its their hard earned money he was protecting. And yet they will never see their money again but it worked as the narrow minded bought into an ideology that was to undermine their very existence. Who can figure.
As our economy is intrinsically linked to the US and the rest of the world it's hard to argue that urgent action is not required. However well or poorly Canada has handled itself has little to do with whether we are facing a problem or not.
As for the bailouts: They were incredibally poorly executed! The Treasury Secretary in the states was recently the head of Goldman Sachs and there were no checks or balances as the legislation was rammed through Congress. They don't deserve help, but considering the situation we are in action was necessary.
Not quite sure where you are coming from with immigration and housing there.
You're right that the subsidies had something to do with this. However, it is not the sole reason but rather the trigger or last straw. It demonstrated to the other parties that Harper was not interested in governing in a minority parliament but scoring a political coup by bankrupting the other parties. I actually agree with this funding as it was part of measure chretien brought in that sought to keep out the influence of trade unions and corporations from the political process.
The conservatives have already cancelled the idea of cutting the subsidies FYI. However, it has yet to have any effect on the resolve of the opposition to present an alternative government that is prepared to start taking action on the economic crisis.
"There is time for partisanship and times to set it aside. This is one of those times."
Yeah, but which one of those times you mentioned is it?
I say take out the Tories, Harper only understands force.
"There is time for partisanship and times to set it aside. This is one of those times."
Yeah, but which one of those times you mentioned is it?
Obviously the latter. 
And then, tax dollars for those who don't pay them and program cuts for those who do. Remarkably, an exact mirror policy as the USofA.
I agree. But on the otherhand, Stephen Harper said we are entering an economic period unparalled since the Great Depression. Google those words if they are unknown to you beyond in an abstract historical way. Harper, himself, is warning of a major economic collapse that could last a decade. Think about the gravity of that.
And then, his first economic statement to guide the nation through these troubled waters contains no specific economic polciy but spits on the opposition he needs to convince Canadians to get behind the government in these trying days ahead.
Think about that!
This is petty, petty, partisan politics at their most depraved. He has put scoring cheap points against the opposition before the interests of the nation. Does he even know what his fucking job is and what responsibilty that entails? We've put a schoolboy at the head of our government.
And there are peopke who will defend this? Conservatives who maintain the party line should be ashamed and both their intelligence and their integrity should be openly mocked.
It sure would be nice if this works out. I heard part of Flaherty's speech and found it petty, two faced, certainly not anything to be proud off.
It will all , in my opinion, hinge on what proposals will come on the table with respect to the environment and economy. Building more cars, digging into fossil tarpits and cutting more trees for lumber is not what we need. We need more public transportation infrastructure, a stable and transparent financial system, reduce corporate power and above all deal with environmental problems, plant trees, stop soil erosion, etc.
It is a lot easier to deal with clear objectives. And what is clear about corporate and financial institutions these days?
While I do like the sentiment of refusing to cooperate with the capitalists, I find it an ironic sentiment coming from a capitalist party.
There is a historic opportunity here to change the balance of forces of Canadian politics and it cannot be thrown away. Let the Liberals and Conservatives take responsibility for the crisis of the capitalist system they defend while the NDP builds support by proposing the only genuine alternative – Socialism.
First, I am not sure that this sort of change in the balance of forces will effect positive change or bring about socialism. I live in a province that has undergone this change and I haven't seen any serious socialism in a while. If anything, this change will only force the NDP to the center and make them more like the Liberals, as has happened on the provincial level in a few provinces.
Furthermore, as the NDP is a capitalist party, what is the difference between the NDP and the other parties, apart from the NDP never getting elected federally?
And in the extremely likely scenario that NDP continues to refuse to propose a socialist alternative, what then?
I can understand the sentiments behind not wanting to make coalitions with capitalist parties, but I just don't see how the NDP would have any credibility proclaiming "no coalitions with the bosses parties" when they are a capitalist party themselves. Just get together with the Liberals to get some minor shit done and block the Conservatives, it's not like you haven't done it before ("NDP budget" a few years back) or have any sort of anticapitalist principles which would prevent you from working with a capitalist party. I see a lot of language of socialism and anti-capitalism in this thing, but I don't see the same coming out of any mainstream New Democrats (read: anyone with any actual power)
Translation: Bring down the Conservatives and watch while the next election produces a Conservative majority which we can then not bring down at all.
That's what I see happening, unless PR can be implemented by a coalition.
Could PR be implemented that quickly? How could the BQ be enticed to back PR?
If there is a coalition, it would be nice if the 3 parties needed to keep it in power fixed a "no earlier than" election date and signed in it blood. Then, throughout the coalition term, I think it should be left to the BQ to choose between the Lib or NDP leader as to who will be PM. (reviewable every year, or every time the LPC/NDP changes their leader)
What a dismal yet intriguing mess the federal scene is now!
=========================================
http://www.gandhiserve.org/information/questions_and_answers/faq7/faq7.h...
Resisting the move to the right in the vacuum the Liberal party might leave would be a "happy problem" compared to the problems we face today.
And while fundraising is important to polical parties, it is not as important as some make it out to be.
Governments in Canada hardly ever get elected. Governments get unelected. What we have been seeing, forever, is people unelecting Liberals from time to time, and when they get an eyefull of the Conservative clown show, they unelect them, with the Liberals as the default position.
So, the Tories, or for fans of history, The Family Compact is maintained in power.
If we allow the Liberal party of Canada to go the way of the Liberal party of England, then we can, without much effort, expect to be elected a bit more often than previously.
In the mean time, Tory policies have to be fought on the street level-- which would be a good thing. Maybe through that excersize the left might actually understand the nature of political power.
Do you people even know what a coalition is?
What we had in Ontario was an accord, not a coalition. The NDP had no obligation to support the Liberal government on any particular political position, other than what was expressly in the accord. The Liberals were in effect kept on a short leash, and when they failed the NDP was the logical alternative to replace them.
With a coalition, on the other hand, the NDP would share joint responsibility for the government's policies, not just the parts they like. This means they would have to defend and promote the coalition's (i.e. Liberals') policies and they would be politically accountable to the voters for them.
Do you really want Jack Layton to be defending the war in Afghanistan in exchange for a seat at the cabinet table? (Where, BTW, he would be bound by cabinet solidarity to advocate for all the other Liberal policies he didn't agree with.)
Do you really want to see the voice of the social democratic left silenced in Parliament? Do you really want the NDP to have to answer to the voters in the next election for the policies of the coalition government?
Is there no principle you will not sacrifice in order to share power with the capitalists?
Tommy, I am extremely partisan, probably more so than most here. However, it does not blind me to the need at this time for non-partisan endeavors.
For me, there is no way I could support the NDP, not having a concrete seat at the table. And there is no way I could support the continuation of a Harper government, or allowing a majority to happen, if the government was brought down and we were forced into another election. It is too dangerous for my gender, and thus too dangerous for my daughter and granddaughter.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"While I do like the sentiment of refusing to cooperate with the capitalists, I find it an ironic sentiment coming from a capitalist party.
Exactly.
Pretending that the NDP is something that it is not, and demanding that it stay on the sidelines when people are actually in motion and want to taste a small victory - will guarantee that the NDP never becomes what it might perhaps be.
To those who say, "no cooperation with the bosses' parties" - even leaving aside what the NDP really is or is not - I reply, come spend some time in the workers' movement. By your slogan, we would never sign a collective agreement. We would never call a truce. We would keep fighting till we had nothing left. And that would make the bosses very unhappy, would it?
Do you people even know what a coalition is?
Why are you operating with pre-fab definitions?
A "coalition" is whatever the contracting parties say it is.
For example, why not advise the NDP that in exchange for joining a coalition, its spokespersons maintain complete freedom of public expression? Not breaching cabinet secrecy, of course, but still complete freedom to say what they think about government policy they don't like?
E.g., if they can't negotiate a decent stand on withdrawal from Afghanistan within the coalition, they continue to publicly agitate for what they believe - and rally support? Should be a lot easier once they are also in government and visibly implementing at least some very pro-people measures.
You can't fight this with definitions IMHO. We're in a completely unprecedented situation right now. Make some proposals as to how to make it work. I'm from the union. Everything is negotiable. And the NDP has some bargaining power right now.
Based on what I said, why would we have to sacrifice one single principle? Not to mention all the principles the NDP has already sacrificed, with nothing in return...
Furthermore, I blew the nonsensical notion/ploy of "sharing power with capitalist" out of the water above, in my first post in this thread. For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
I really think we are smarter than this. The option that Harper has put before us through his own childish vindictiveness and incompetence, is the choice of a minority Harper government (let's not pretend the government exists outside the PMO's inner sanctum) or a Liberal/NDP government. That's your choice. Which do you want?
Well said remind. I think people are missing that the economic statement was gratuitously hard right, with attacks on pay equity, labour rights and the like. Thomas Walkom’s Tor Star column explored this very well yesterday I think. In this climate to give into the bases of political and ideological instincts does not bode well for the future- time to use the tools of our democracy for the good of Canadians while they can be used.
I am uneasy about a coalition I must say, but better a coalition based on some simple principles than allowing Harper to sink this country deeper into a mean-spirited morass.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/545795
The thing that I find most disheartening about comments like the one from M. Spector is that they're essentially advocating that the NDP act like the Conservatives: give in to ideological impulses no matter the cost. I don't like the idea of the NDP being part of a government that is probably going to have rather neoliberal tax policies, but I definitely like it a lot better than allowing Harper to attack pay equity and the right to strike. I also respect the way that democracy (ideally) works, which is that all major voices are taken into account in policy making. The Liberals won a more significant share of seats in the last election than the NDP, and got a larger portion of the popular vote. Anyone who respects democratic principles surely recognizes that the NDP does not have a legitimate basis on which to dictate policy. So they should do what they do have a legitimate basis to do, which is to push policy in as progressive a direction as possible.
Of course they have a legitimate basis on which to direct policy from. In fact, more of one that they had when they forced the introduction of social safety nets actions and universal health care.
The Liberals got a million more votes than the NDP, or 9.1% more of the popular vote. Nothing in there suggests that the Liberals have anymore right to direct policy than the NDP, or Bloc, do. Moreover, we have no idea how many swing/strategic voters that million entails. The NDP increased its seat totals, while the Liberals lost on every front. More people wanted Layton as PM in several polls, than even Harper. The NDP are not the poor cousins at this table. Nor will they allow themselves to be. The NDP a have legitimate democratic basis to dictate policies and they will.
Moreover, I feel that your comment is one of actual Liberal hubris sentiments, as it indicates a belief that only they have the legitimate wherewithawl to govern, and not in partnership with the NDP. If the Liberals are going to start pulling that type of shit already, with only 9.1% of the popular vote higher, they can go fuck themselves and there will be no coalition, nor p[ropping up. And we will see just where they end up if another election is then called. Because the NDP support is not going anywhere. However the Liberal Party's is, and it is going down, and would go down further, as if Canadians wanted Liberal policies they would have voted LIBERAL.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
Ken S asked in another thread, (they are opening and closing fast), what are the Green party doing. They launched the website, to sign a petition to have money flow to them. $1.95. And donate money. The site is in Liberal Red Colours, and you have to look carefully to see it is GPC.
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/
No word about the coalition or bringing down the conservatives.
The Greens are already in one coalition, why would they want another?
Ken S asked in another thread, (they are opening and closing fast), what are the Green party doing. They launched the website, to sign a petition to have money flow to them. $1.95. And donate money. The site is in Liberal Red Colours, and you have to look carefully to see it is GPC.
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/
No word about the coalition or bringing down the conservatives.
Yeah, whatever.
Coalition would be a Victory for DemocracySubmitted by Elizabeth May on 29 November 2008 - 1:13pm.
In moving the confidence vote off by one week, Stephen Harper has bought himself until December 8th to try to turn Canadians against the idea of a Coalition Government. Public opinion could impact the momentum for this - the most exciting and encouraging development in Canadian politics since... maybe ever.
(Continued on her blog)
Of course they have a legitimate basis on which to direct policy from. In fact, more of one that they had when they forced the introduction of social safety nets actions and universal health care.
Moreover, I feel that your comment is one of actual Liberal hubris sentiments, as it indicates a belief that only they have the legitimate wherewithawl to govern, and not in partnership with the NDP.
I think you're misinterpreting what I was saying a bit. The word "dictate" was very deliberately chosen. The NDP do not have the right to essentially become, on their own, the government of Canada, as it seems some posters believe. I also don't think that the Liberals have any right to dictate policy, but I do think that, based on the results of the election, the Liberals do have the right to be the senior member in the coalition. I don't believe for a second that they have that power on their own, and if they're not willing to give the NDP and the Bloc a significant voice then their power is not legitimate either.
"It is too dangerous for my gender, and thus too dangerous for my daughter and granddaughter."
Indeed, it is dangerous times for many of us. And it is in the deffense of the hopes and security of my daughters, and grandchildren who will no doubt arrive in the not too distant future, that I take the position that I do.
We are likely, as much as I do wish we weren't, at the beginning of an economic crisis that will set the stage for economic planning for generations to come. If we were further down the road in this crisis, where the Conservatives and their policies were firmly embeded in people's minds as the policies of economic failure, I would be taking a different approach to the idea of coalition.
This is a blow struck prematurely.
Coalition, as a solution to, or amelioration of, the short term economic and political devistation, is predicated on the idea that political power rests exclusively in Parliament or our legislatures.
Political power is nothing more than the ability to do things for or too people. I think we on the left have been very good at advocating for the powerless, and being active in, or promoting progressive organizations.
But we are woefully inadept at doing things too people.
In the last month, while bragging about the stable and nicely regulated Canadian banking system, the Conservative government has been shovelling money at the banks like a gang of whipped stokers in the bowels of the Titanic.
The banks have taken the money from your daughters, and your grand daughters.
And, if we do not do our best to sieze this opportunity to relegate the Liberals to obscurity, we will watch the banks take the money from your great grand children.
Jeez Tommy I wish I had less respect for you so I could dismiss what you are saying. However, whenever I start to thinking this is all good in terms of forming a coalition you come along and make me pull back from that thinking and just become confused and ambivelant.
Stop it!
Furthermore, I blew the nonsensical notion/ploy of "sharing power with capitalist" out of the water above, in my first post in this thread. For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
Of course they have a legitimate basis on which to direct policy from. In fact, more of one that they had when they forced the introduction of social safety nets actions and universal health care.
The Liberals got a million more votes than the NDP, or 9.1% more of the popular vote. Nothing in there suggests that the Liberals have anymore right to direct policy than the NDP, or Bloc, do. Moreover, we have no idea how many swing/strategic voters that million entails. The NDP increased its seat totals, while the Liberals lost on every front. More people wanted Layton as PM in several polls, than even Harper. The NDP are not the poor cousins at this table. Nor will they allow themselves to be. The NDP a have legitimate democratic basis to dictate policies and they will.
Moreover, I feel that your comment is one of actual Liberal hubris sentiments, as it indicates a belief that only they have the legitimate wherewithawl to govern, and not in partnership with the NDP. If the Liberals are going to start pulling that type of shit already, with only 9.1% of the popular vote higher, they can go fuck themselves and there will be no coalition, nor p[ropping up. And we will see just where they end up if another election is then called. Because the NDP support is not going anywhere. However the Liberal Party's is, and it is going down, and would go down further, as if Canadians wanted Liberal policies they would have voted LIBERAL.
___________________________________________________________ "watching the tide roll away"
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
And, if we do not do our best to sieze this opportunity to relegate the Liberals to obscurity, we will watch the banks take the money from your great grand children.
So if the liberals cease to exist, there most certainly will be a conservative majority. I fail to understand how this will improve the lives of canadians, or my potential children for that matter. Your logic on this = Fail.
You're right though that this does present an enormous opportunity to redirect financial and economic policy for some time. For the life of me though, I don't understand why the ndp would not want to be a part of this.
Whereas I think that if the NDP is seen playing that partisan game right now (of eliminating the Liberals - which won't happen anyway, unless the NDP becomes the Liberal party), they will lose any high ground they can possibly aspire to. Let them try to participate in government for a change. If people can't then distinguish between them and the Liberals, it will only be because they themselves have drawn no distinction.
"You're right though that this does present an enormous opportunity to redirect financial and economic policy for some time. For the life of me though, I don't understand why the ndp would not want to be a part of this."
You are assuming that a coalition could last years. I think that's unlikely.
What I think is likely is that once the Liberals are in power, and have their hands on the ability to send government contracts this way and that, their fundraising woes will miraculously dissapear. And, with a new leader, the NDP is right back, firmly ensconced once again as the perenial third party with 15% of the popular vote. Or less.
So, at best, if the coalition is seen to govern well, the rejuvinated Liberals garner the laurels.
Then they get elected to a majority, and do the "bait and switch", and we are yet again victims of right wing economic policy.
Even worse is if the coalition is seen to govern badly-- which the NDP will likely get credit for, along with the Liberals. Then the Conservatives return as the economic saviors, and then we're really up the creek without a paddle.
Or, everything could go smashingly well, and the NDP is seen as the orchestrator of the success-- because we all know how much the media loves to spin things our way-- and the NDP gets elected to a majority.
I'd love to see that needle threaded.
remind: "For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution"
Hear hear. It is crucial to take advantage of the pickle that Harper's hubris got him into.
For me the only real risk - and Harper seems to be betting on it - is that the Grits will pull out of - or otherwise scuttle - coalition talks over the next ten days in the hope of taking over government sometime later, when a new leader (Iggy or someone else - is Hervieux-Payette a possibility?) gives them enough pull to dream of winning power without compromising with the NDP and having to face an opposition that claims legitimacy.
I can't see the liberals gaining a majority or any other party for that matter for quite some time, possibly forever, especially after destroying harper.
Regardless of how long it lasts, the dynamic of federal politics will have changed and the ndp will have become a viable option. If they succeed in implementing PR then things will most definately change for the better.
Jeez Tommy I wish I had less respect for you so I could dismiss what you are saying. However, whenever I start to thinking this is all good in terms of forming a coalition you come along and make me pull back from that thinking and just become confused and ambivelant.
Stop it!
Thank you.
You know, I read carefully the points made by those who favour this coalition. And I fully understand, and respect those views. They are not "stupid" ideas, and I wouldn't even characterize them as "wrong", or ill advised.
It's, as the English might say, "a sticky wicket".
But as is my reductionist habit, it all comes down to short term vs. long term. I think those who favour the coalition do so because of shorter term interests. I am not in favour of coalition at this time because it presents little opportunity for reward in our long term interests.
These are the times that try people's souls.
"If they succeed in implementing PR then things will most definately change for the better. "
If the deal cut on this has PR as "Bill 1", then I might do an about face on the subject.
However, I am not holding my breath.
Your scepticism is perfectly legitimate. I just don't share it.
Furthermore, I blew the nonsensical notion/ploy of "sharing power with capitalist" out of the water above, in my first post in this thread. For me, those that want to stand in ideological purity, can continue to do so, but I as a woman, am not going to do so. The system we have is the one we have to work with, and the only way to change it, is to work within it to move it left, or have a violent revolution, and I am seriously NOT supportive of revolution.
Yes, well, you are a reactionary.
The problem with your conceptualization of revolution is that you seem to think that "revolution" is necessarily some kind of "decision" made by some people, or group of people, to violently overthrow the existing order by force. I doesn't work that way. Revolutions are complex events, with a number of causual factors, not the least of which is collapse of the power of the existing order, which people consent to because the existing order has moral legitimacy in the eyes of the poplulation.
Some revolutionaries like to flatter themselves with the idea that they are "causing" the revolution to happen. This is usually hubris, or propoganda posturing. What is actually happening is that the power of existing order has failed and new political organization are inserting themselves into the political discourse to assert power, where there is a vacuum of legitimate power.
Violence errupts when elements of the existing order try to repress the new order, and vis versa. In reality, being opposed to "revolution" is to say that you will side with the old order, in its efforts to repress the emerging order. There may be very good reason to do so, depending on the shape of the emerging order, but the meta-concept behind this opposition to revolution is a typical right wing image of molotov cocktail lobbing Bolsheviks attacking the state, when just as often, these "revolutionaries" are actually defending legitimate social organizations from the repressive violence of the state.
Revolutions are never a good thing. Sometimes, they are necessary, unfortunately. Nor are they necessarily something that an individual, or a group of individuals choose. In my view, real revolutionaries are not those who are simply lashing out and trying destabalize the existing system, but those who have taken on the job of doing damage control, when the existing order fails to operate effectively.
One can also see "Revolution" - in the field of discourse, not that of history. since discourse is where we are at here and now - as a complacent male fantasy of well-then-we'll (or they'll)-resort-to-Force-by-golly.
Just back from the convenience store and the front page of today's edition of La PRESSE is very telling: Eyebrow: Le gouvernement Harper en péril" and main garish title "La guerre de succession", with this "war" carefully framed as fought between bitter angy Dion and Harper - a desperate attempt - supported by the main editorial - to convince readers (or mere glancers) that the NPD and the Grits cannot find common ground and that it would be choosing instability and war to let them create a coalition government.
Some people seem to be running very scared at Power Corporation...
In subtext, an appeal to federalists : Do you really want Gilles Duceppe to have a hand in running your country?
Ken S asked in another thread, (they are opening and closing fast), what are the Green party doing. They launched the website, to sign a petition to have money flow to them. $1.95. And donate money. The site is in Liberal Red Colours, and you have to look carefully to see it is GPC.
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/
No word about the coalition or bringing down the conservatives.
Yeah, whatever.
That was with regards to the defend our democracy site. Not the GP site. Anymember can write a blog on the party webpage.
These are the times that try people's souls.
Or as Douglas Adams might say - this is the long, dark tea time of the soul.
Ken S asked in another thread, (they are opening and closing fast), what are the Green party doing. They launched the website, to sign a petition to have money flow to them. $1.95. And donate money. The site is in Liberal Red Colours, and you have to look carefully to see it is GPC.
http://www.defendourdemocracy.ca/
No word about the coalition or bringing down the conservatives.
Yeah, whatever.
That was with regards to the defend our democracy site. Not the GP site. Anymember can write a blog on the party webpage.
Seemed like you were suggesting that the main page had nothing on the topic to me, but I could have misunderstood.
I fail to see how a spirit of cooperation with the liberals on the ndps part is any different than that of the greens. Canada's flag is red, I don't see how you can associate it with the liberal party automatically. They don't hold copyright on the colour red. The site was not overtly partisan so I don't get your criticism.
"You're right though that this does present an enormous opportunity to redirect financial and economic policy for some time. For the life of me though, I don't understand why the ndp would not want to be a part of this."
You are assuming that a coalition could last years. I think that's unlikely.
What I think is likely is that once the Liberals are in power, and have their hands on the ability to send government contracts this way and that, their fundraising woes will miraculously dissapear. And, with a new leader, the NDP is right back, firmly ensconced once again as the perenial third party with 15% of the popular vote. Or less.
So, at best, if the coalition is seen to govern well, the rejuvinated Liberals garner the laurels.
The problem is with Harper. That said, Liberal arrogance will rise with the smoke from their ashes. A fire will light up, and yes, business as usual. Their are already signs of LPC arrogance formenting, and all they have managed so far is to get out from the fetal position and barely standing on both knees. Yes, they need the NDP to give them that hand up.
The NDP has lots to risk in doing this. They must be careful, but the coalition is still the most interesting prospect the CCF and NDP have ever encountered.
You only live once.
Is that what happened in the 1974 election?
I agree with the Dump Harper, but don't really beleive that we should hand a coalition governemnt a blank cheque. So many folks who are on the left seem to have lost sight of many things in the discussion about a coalition government.
The crucial thing is that the economic crisis has created a political crisis for the ruling class in Canada. We should have no illusions that a coalition governement won't be at the front of arguing that we are all in this together and everyone has to tighten their belts.
Those calling for a coalition governemnt seem to have some case of amnesia - the liberals are the same as the Tories.
It was the lib erals who slashed EI, tried introducing ICLRPS on students, slashed the health and social transfer, downloaded services to the provinces etc, etc, etc,
To think that they won't try to make the working class pay for the crisis is just silly.
The key is that our eyes have to be on fightbacks from below that put demands on whoever is in power.
Callinig for a coalition governemnt without conditions is to forget history, the NDP in Ontario attacked workers and the union leadership didn't mobilise, the Liberals have savaged social programs and the labour movement did very little.
If we want to take advantage of teh crisis, the real question then is about how can we mobilise against bailouts for the rich and argue for nationalisation and green jobs, pension protection etc...
Without that sort of mobilisation, the I beleive taht any coalition governemnt will find itself instituting cuts, and doling out dollars to businesses.
The NDP should be very clear that a coalition government will leave them in the position of implementing as they have before austerity measures on the working class.
One can also see "Revolution" - in the field of discourse, not that of history. since discourse is where we are at here and now - as a complacent male fantasy of well-then-we'll (or they'll)-resort-to-Force-by-golly.
That's nice Martin, but I am sure you would be the last person to suggest that woman would be in the wrong for defending herself from assault. In fact, no one is. If the police start shooting at demonstrators, they have the right to shoot back. End of story.
And I agree with you about discourse. But as the discourse changes, not everyone changes with it.
How has the NDP fared in elections where it teamed up with the Liberals?
1987 Ontario (the alliance collapsed the Tories - guess who disaffected Tories voted for next time)
Vote: +2%
Seats: -6
1974 Federal (again, Tory vote collapsed against a kinder gentler Liberal party, some Tories voted Liberal and the NDP suffered)
Vote: -2%
Seats: -15
1968 federal (NDP vote held against Trudeaumania)
Vote: -1%
Seats: +1
On the other hand, if they back out of the coalition and let the destruction of the Liberals happen, where do you think those left of centre votes are going to go? The NDP is giving life to a dying Liberal party - a move that risks a return of majority governments, and crowding out of the NDP on the left. Moreover, it means the NDP gets tagged with the recession, especially if the recession turns out to be deeper than expected (and in part because in a coalition the NDP will not be able to solve the recession NDP-style).
So in that sense, the Marxists may not be too far off the mark.
This coalition is born of necessity.
If the NDP "stands by its principles" or something like that and gets 45 seats next election, it won't be enough to bring back everything the conservatives want to eliminate.
I agree with the Dump Harper, but don't really beleive that we should hand a coalition governemnt a blank cheque. So many folks who are on the left seem to have lost sight of many things in the discussion about a coalition government.
The crucial thing is that the economic crisis has created a political crisis for the ruling class in Canada. We should have no illusions that a coalition governement won't be at the front of arguing that we are all in this together and everyone has to tighten their belts.
Those calling for a coalition governemnt seem to have some case of amnesia - the liberals are the same as the Tories.
It was the lib erals who slashed EI, tried introducing ICLRPS on students, slashed the health and social transfer, downloaded services to the provinces etc, etc, etc,
To think that they won't try to make the working class pay for the crisis is just silly.
The key is that our eyes have to be on fightbacks from below that put demands on whoever is in power.
Callinig for a coalition governemnt without conditions is to forget history, the NDP in Ontario attacked workers and the union leadership didn't mobilise, the Liberals have savaged social programs and the labour movement did very little.
If we want to take advantage of teh crisis, the real question then is about how can we mobilise against bailouts for the rich and argue for nationalisation and green jobs, pension protection etc...
Without that sort of mobilisation, the I beleive taht any coalition governemnt will find itself instituting cuts, and doling out dollars to businesses.
The NDP should be very clear that a coalition government will leave them in the position of implementing as they have before austerity measures on the working class.
Excellent comment, arthur! This unconditional coalition proposal is a trap for the NDP. Far better to sign an accord that would allow them to pull the plug at any time by making their support for the Liberals conditional.
But anything that would make the NDP carry the can for the inevitable failure of capitalism to solve its financial crisis, while imposing austerity on the workers, should be out of the question.
IMO, those who think the NDP is the party of the working class (ahem) and who are afraid it will be compromised by a coalition, have little to fear. If anyone squelches this deal, it will be the cowardly Liberals themselves. They have no leader, they have no program, and they have little to fear from Harper and Flaherty now that their precious funding will continue.
It can do both, with the right measures.
1. The NDP should insist on Dion as Prime Minister, that way Dion gets to contest the next election. With the Tories weakened by this affair and Dion's lack of political skills, it will mean the NDP gains once the coalition falls (and face it, that is going to happen). That is CRITICAL to the NDP's power within the coalition - if the Liberals ever have an incentive to call an election and gain seats (after about a year) they will take it.
2. The NDP must use its power to push the Liberals to the left. There are three reasons for that. First-off, Dippers surely like left wing policies. Secondly, the alliance is rooted in ideology - if the coalition moves to the centre, the Tories can split it by focusing on federal-provincial issues. Thirdly, doing so will hurt the Liberals (but not the NDP) in the next election, possibly aiding them in replacing the Liberals as the government. Whoever has more seats in the coalition gets to govern.
If the NDP does this they can avoid the fate of say, Mario Dumont.
IMO, those who think that the Liberal Party has no program, and that an NDP-Liberal coalition will adopt NDP policies are dreaming in Technicolour.
Better to dream in technicolour, than wallow in the depths of hedonistic pessimism, and negativity.
There is absolutely nothing to indicate what you say is truth, in fact, according to the leaked caucus meeting, there is much evidence to prove you wrong. Moreover, also according to the leaked meeting, it is a 3 way accord, with the Bloc also signing an agreement.
Having said that, I agree the Liberals must be watched closely because they will try to turn it into a them thing.
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
M. Spector: Hedonistic pessimist. HP! Is this some kind of B&D, BDSM thing you can do with friends?
Having said that, I agree the Liberals must be watched closely because they will try to turn it into a them thing.
Why, the nerve of those Liberals! After all, they only got 77 seats, whereas the NDP got 37.... oh, never mind!
In subtext, an appeal to federalists : Do you really want Gilles Duceppe to have a hand in running your country?
As if he has not in the proceeding parliament?
I also doubt he's going to be able to force any constitutional changes. So long as Quebec gets a generous helping of whatever stimulus is coming, he'll go with it.
Is that what happened in the 1974 election?
In some ways, yes. The Liberals generally took credit for nationalist NDP policies. But the whole issue of who had done what in the previous parliament was sidetracked by the debate on stagflation. It was about what to do in the crisis to come, not who had done what. Also, economic conditions were rapidly worsening, so association with previous parliament was not necessarily an asset.
I am adamantly opposed to any coalition between the NDP and the Liberals.
It does not really matter what verbal concessions the NDP is able to get out of the Liberals in a coalition deal. The Liberals will be the senior partner in the coalition, Dion will be Prime Minister, and the Liberals will be able to dictate policy.
The NDP will get a few cabinet posts in a coalition, but the legislation that these cabinet minsters draw up will still have to pass a Canbinet vote where the majority of votes are held by Liberals. The Liberals will be able to pull a "bait and switch" in the cabinet room, decide that policies agreed to in order to form the coalition are being ditched, and vote down bills put forward by NDP cabinet mininsters which contain said policies. And because of cabinet secrecy, the public will never know about any of it.
The Liberals, on the other hand, will be able to use their majority in Cabinet to bring bills before the HOC, that the NDP oppose. And, if the NDP vote against any such bills, in order to maintain some semblence of principles, the media will spin it as the NDP breaking the deal they signed when they formed the coalition.
In short, if the NDP joins in a coalition with the Liberals, they will be on a very short leash, with very few card to play. Not an acceptable situation, IMO.
Well, Left Turn, what if all the coalition platform were made public right from the start?
Such a coalition deal would still not prevent the Liberals from pulling a "bait and switch" in the cabinet room. Our governance system is structured in such a way that no coalition agreement can spell out exactly what legislation the government must bring forward, and prevent it from bringing forward anything else.
Meh we are damned if we do we are damned if we don't I can understand all the consternation about a coalition and the optics of it, However personally, if harper is allowed ANY more time in power esp unckecked as has ahappend in the last 3 years we are fucked. We won't have to worry about being elected because there will be nothing left to govern. I guess it was wrong for Tommy to work with the libs to bring in medicare as well.
The point some are missintg is, Judges, public assets, making the public distrust(more) public office, privatization, deregulation. This is what we face if the cons are allowed to stay on, amounst other heinous thing...umm wire tapping. I believe there will be some kind of clause in there against some dirty back stabbing by the libs, remember if things go to shit our ace in the hole is a few bloc members come down with the flu...oopsie I guess the house collapsed. Seeing as they are only supporting the ideas that are of benefit to the bloc(mostly left ideas we can all agree) it will keep the libs honest because there is a mechanism to shorten the length of the 'coalition'. No cabinet means the politcal damage is very small and may be positive if it is an example of poor faith bargaining on the libs part.
I have my worries, but the alternative is to me, much worse. As much as I dislike chretien and mcguinty, they have both governed a lot more to my liking than either harris or malroney. At least dalton finally raised the minimum wage, something the tories said they would never do! Less evil is still less evil....remember bloc=short leash for libs.
____________________________________________________________________________________ "Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it." Noam Chomsky
Heaven forbid New Democrats get their hands dirty actually governing. It endangers our purity and worse yet, we might actually accomplish something!
I am adamantly opposed to any coalition between the NDP and the Liberals.
It does not really matter what verbal concessions the NDP is able to get out of the Liberals in a coalition deal. The Liberals will be the senior partner in the coalition, Dion will be Prime Minister, and the Liberals will be able to dictate policy.
The NDP will get a few cabinet posts in a coalition, but the legislation that these cabinet minsters draw up will still have to pass a Canbinet vote where the majority of votes are held by Liberals. The Liberals will be able to pull a "bait and switch" in the cabinet room, decide that policies agreed to in order to form the coalition are being ditched, and vote down bills put forward by NDP cabinet mininsters which contain said policies. And because of cabinet secrecy, the public will never know about any of it.
The Liberals, on the other hand, will be able to use their majority in Cabinet to bring bills before the HOC, that the NDP oppose. And, if the NDP vote against any such bills, in order to maintain some semblence of principles, the media will spin it as the NDP breaking the deal they signed when they formed the coalition.
In short, if the NDP joins in a coalition with the Liberals, they will be on a very short leash, with very few card to play. Not an acceptable situation, IMO.
I respectively disagree. The majority in the coalition is the combined votes of the NDP-Bloc as together they hold 37 plus 49 which equals 86 votes to the libs 77. Remember the NDP comes with 49 silent votes but they are votes none-the-less.
______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!
Meh we are damned if we do we are damned if we don't I can understand all the consternation about a coalition and the optics of it, However personally, if harper is allowed ANY more time in power esp unckecked as has ahappend in the last 3 years we are fucked. We won't have to worry about being elected because there will be nothing left to govern. I guess it was wrong for Tommy to work with the libs to bring in medicare as well.
No. He would be fucked. Never interupt you enemy while he is making a mistake.
Case in point Specter and others who have no overt Marxist principles themselves are inclined to see the truth about the liberals and the historical precedent for a coalition with bosses parties. those who claim the NDP is not a workers party ignore facts. the NDP is a grouiping of socialist groups and the Canadian Labour Congress this party is based on the working class mass organizations and the vast majority of the rank and file are workers, students and farmers. The marxists and indeed even the NDP leadership dont claim the party puts forward `pure`workers political ideology and it doesnt matter if it does. the party is fundementally of working class make up. as per unionists comment that I should join the labour movement I say to him I am a long time member of the movement and have my own battle scars from the struggle with my boss. I have held membership in four unions and have batton marks on my back from the ìllegal strike line`, all contributors to Fightback are NDP members and all are workers and students (largly workers). also someone said I was Alex Grant just wanted to clarify I am not but he is a good friend of mine. I am a long time member of the NDP my name is Justin Kranjec Ive worked on each and every NDP campaign that has come my way. bravo to those who already see this coalition is stillborn and doomed to fail. to those who dont I hope for the party`s sake you are right but know thaT HISTORY WILL PROVE US RIGHT.
Look, no one thinks the Liberals are angels. But no one who is against the coalition has actually suggested any sort of alternative. So, to enemy_of_capital, Left Turn, and anyone else who takes that position, I ask one simple question: what do you think the NDP should actually do?
Do you believe that Harper should be allowed to continue running the show? Do you genuinely believe the NDP could form a majority government if there was an election today?
And the NDP are angels, I suppose. The NDP should join this coalition. It would put the NDP one step closer to finally amalgamating with the Liberals. This will be a good thing, as it will clarify who is who.
In the long term, this coalition is going to be a very unstable entity, which will considerably hamstrung by the alignment it is composed of. So, the question is not what the NDP is "should actually do," but can they do anything, other than stop Harper from finally establishing that he is a right-wing authoritarian fuckwad? Stopping Harper is not much of a mandate to govern.
Furthermore, who wants to govern now, just as the tidal wave of the coming depression hits? Is an unstable government, with little mandate to govern really have the necessary power to do what is necessary to get the job done? Sounds like a recipe for disaster, both for the country, and for the fortunes of those who govern, in the long run.
Meanwhile, if Harper is outsted, and he manages to keep control of his party, he will have slipped past the noose of all that is bad that is coming down the pipe, and the Tories can claim that their initiatives were what was needed to avert the crisis, and the Liberals and the NDP who screwed up.
The optics for a Harper majority in the near future are very good in that scenario.
I've already listed in response to the same comment by you in another thread a number of likely moves a coalition would make that would be positive. The idea that they wouldn't do or accomplish anything is pretty absurd.
It's not a matter of denying the truth about the Liberals (at least, for me it isn't), it is a matter of the truth of the NDP.
As someone who lives in an NDP province, that sounds like a sick joke.
Not always a fan of the labour bureaucracy. Despite the good things they do, there are times when they act as an element of labour control and demobilize militant rank and file members in order to point the labour movement towards a low risk, no reward strategy of trying to get the NDP elected.
To the extent that you could say that about the NDP (actually, I wonder what proportion of workers, students and farmers are members of the NDP, considering estimates of the number of Canadians in any political party are generally at the 1-2% mark. It can't be more than 1%), you could probably say that about a lot of other parties too. The other parties likely also have workers, students and (especially with the Cons) farmers as well.
Actually, it does matter to the people who are affected by it, such as those who live in NDP provinces and simply can no longer support ideologies and policies promoted by the NDP which are contrary to their class interests based on some vague notion of the NDP as some sort of vanguard of the working class. And it matters to this discussion. What is the point of saying "no collaboration with the bosses parties" when the NDP is a capitalist party itself? Where are all these socialist principles in the NDP coming from?
Essentially, my problem with this principles opposition to the coalition is not that I don't agree with not cooperating with the capitalist parties in principle. I just find it bizarre that people are using that sort of principle to argue for a capitalist party to not cooperate with capitalist parties. Where the hell are these alleged socialist principles in the NDP the rest of the time?
You might as well be telling the Bloc not to cooperate with separatist parties based on their federalist principles, or the Liberals not to cooperate with capitalist parties based on their socialist principles. It is almost as absurd.
This whole analysis is based on a false conception on the NDP as an anti-capitalist party.
I've already listed in response to the same comment by you in another thread a number of likely moves a coalition would make that would be positive. The idea that they wouldn't do or accomplish anything is pretty absurd.
I saw that list. It wasn't much. Not like, say, something substantive like introducing a National Health Care plan. Think of this example, and tell me that there would not indeed be serious problems instituting that today with the Block in the position that it is? Certainly, they would take the money, but as far as having a national program with one standard of healthcare for all Canadians, overseen by the federal government, that would be very difficult.
Assuming that the Liberals, or the NDP even suggested such an idea, given how it would get tangled up in the FTA/NAFTA deal.
If you remember, this issue was central to the demise of the last Liberal government. On the fine point of the edge of the outline of the period at the end of the fine print.
You don't seriously believe that moving from having no plan on global warming to having, presumably, a rather serious one is a big move? Global warming is a bigger threat than privatised health care ever could be, and I would consider real action on global warming to be a tremendous accomplishment.
If your point is that a coalition government will not overthrow the social order, well, no, but I think anyone who expects the NDP to do that is rather naieve.
I certainly don't think the NDP is into overthrowing the social order. I also don't think that either of the plans submitted by the NDP or the Liberals in the last election were any good.
Now, do you have anything substantive to say about the problem of creating universal federal programs that further tie Quebec into the fabric of the Federal government, given the proposed formulation of the coalition?
I post this for all your interest.
Translation:
Let the Conservatives govern while we wait for the NDP to do something it hasn't come close to doing in its 47-year history (not to mention the previous 28 years of CCF).
Translation:
Bring down the Conservatives and watch while the next election produces a Conservative majority which we can then not bring down at all.
Did they hire McCain's campaign team, or what?
It is that kind of incisive political analysis that garners them their massive support amongst Canadian voters.
___________________________________________________________________________________________From North of Manifest Destiny
I get the feeling I am not as socialist as the good people at fight back are, however, they are certainly right about this:
There is a historic opportunity here to change the balance of forces of Canadian politics and it cannot be thrown away. Let the Liberals and Conservatives take responsibility for the crisis of the capitalist system they defend...
If we throw a life line to the Liberals now, then the game is over. It's the NDP saying we'll always be a third party, and will forever be pleased to watch governments oscilate between one flavour of Tory and the other, forever thwarting the designs and interests of working people.
If we throw a life line to the Liberals now, then the game is over. It's the NDP saying we'll always be a third party, and will forever be pleased to watch governments oscilate between one flavour of Tory and the other, forever thwarting the designs and interests of working people.
While I fully agree with you about the character of the Liberals, Tommy, I think I fully disagree with your analysis above.
Bob Rae and the ONDP threw a lifeline to the Liberals in 1985. Within five years, they were elected to government - for the first and last time ever. Instead of being a third party, their tactical move declared they were prepared to make temporary compromises to achieve gains for workers and others - just as they did with the "NDP budget" of 2005.
What went wrong? Once in power, they forgot why they wanted to get there. Now that they were first, they decided to act like the Liberals. The voters told them to f*** off, and 13 years later, they are further away from the reins of power than ever.
So, my conclusion from history is different from yours. Canadians don't like political parties much. I'm very Canadian in that way. They want to see courageous individuals standing up in the face of adversity, setting aside partisan kindergarten namecalling and gameplaying, and actually trying to stare down the neocons on some specific questions of life-and-death importance to the people.
If the NDP can do that - hell, if the Bloc can do that - it will secure itself credit that will last it a long time.