Canada's 40th Parliament ends its current session this week. It will resume sitting in February, and after a few weeks, a budget debate is expected to trigger an election show down. Shuffling of voting intentions between Liberal and Conservative has drawn most media interest; especially with the Conservatives back on top. However, going back to the 2008 election, what characterizes Canadian public opinion is how little things have changed. The Liberals and Conservatives share between them something over 65 per cent of voting intentions, while the three other parties share something short of 35 per cent.
This configuration of voting intentions is mirrored in the stable Liberal Conservative parliamentary voting coalition that has governed Canada the last few years. Dominated by the personality of the prime minister, this regime has had destructive effects on the lives of Canadians. Only fear of the consequences of an election keeps it alive.
Canada badly needs a change of government. Given the continued weakness of the Liberals -- the prospects of them winning more seats than the Conservatives are slim -- the alternative is for a new parliamentary coalition to be formed following the next election. Call it a Liberal-Green-Democrat government that would replace the Liberal-Conservatives.
For a new coalition to be formed three conditions need to be met. First, between them the NDP, and the Liberals have to win more seats that the Conservatives. This is not going to be easy. Currently the Conservative hold 143 seats to the combined total of 124 for the Liberals and NDP. Based on current polling trends the Conservatives would fall to 130 seats, but the Liberals and NDP would only gain one seat between them. Ideally, the Liberals and New Democrats need to win between them one-half plus one of the 308 seats. Because it is projected to increase its representation from 47 to 53 seats, the strength of the Bloc seems likely to rule out the majority Liberal-New Democrat coalition scenario.
Second, since the NDP and Liberals together could end up with not much more than 40 per cent of the popular vote, it would be best if the Green Party, which is unlikely to win a seat, but will win over five per cent of the national vote, were formally to be part of a governing accord.
Thirdly, the Liberals and the NDP would need to agree after the next election to defeat the returning Conservative government on the speech from the throne. On what grounds? Because with less voter support than the combined vote of three opposition parties, the Conservatives would not have the legitimacy to rule. The Bloc would be informed of what was to happen, but would not be photographed with the Liberal Green Democrats, or asked to pledge support for its agenda.
In one scenario, the Liberals, Greens and NDP would agree in advance not to run against each other in the 142 Conservative held ridings. Though in many respects desirable, this is not going to happen. The parties are dead set against it.
The other scenario is for an SBC (Something Better than a Conservative) internet based coalition to do the thinking in every part of the country. For each Conservative held riding, one among the NDP, Green, and Liberal candidates would be identified as the best placed to defeat the incumbent Conservative. All efforts would be made to elect that candidate. Quebec is a special case, naturally. It would be possible to identify the Canadian alternative candidate in all 75 ridings to be chosen among the Liberal, Green and NDP candidates.
There is a very important precedent from the last election. In Edmonton Strathcona, an internet-based coalition -- Vote for Environment -- asked people to vote for New Democrat Linda Duncan, who went on to defeat incumbent Rahim Jaffer.
Currently, there is a campaign called Catch-22 Conservatives formed to defeat the more vulnerable Conservative incumbents. For a new government to become a possibility there is no need to wait for an opposition party to win an election. Concerted political action in each Conservative held riding will suffice to set the stage for a Liberal-Green-Democrat government.
Bring it on.
Duncan Cameron writes weekly on politics and is president of rabble.ca.
A few dollars is a small price to pay for news for the rest of us. Please donate to rabble today.
While we're at it, why don't we try rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic?
God forbid we should ever consider travelling on a different kind of ship...
Mr. Cameron, first of all, thanks for Rabble. I just found this website and am glad to be here.
However, I just can't agree with your premise that we need to basically vote "strategicly" to block the Tories. I can't agree because this is based on the assumption that all voices to the left of the Tories, are "progressive".
This is always something which bothers me. Somehow it seems to assumed that New Dems, Libs and the Greens are all at the same point of the progressive spectrum, give or take some variation on this. This is faulty reasoning.
I am in my 50s and admittedly can't really speak much to the postions of the Greens on the issues. I just don't know enough about who makes up their membership, and who there base is to really know exactly where they fit in the political spectrum. However, this is not the case with the Liberals; they have a record of running left and governing right. The record includes Trudeau's abandoning of the Carter Commission, impostion of wage controls, extreme Monetary policy that artifically inflated the size of the debt, reducted employment and hurt the poor. As well, under first Lloyd Axworthy, and then Lawrence MacCaulley, the Liberals brought in changes that increased the total number of hours required to qualify for EI by 50%, while reducing the total benefits available both in dollar amount, and duration of payment.
Next, look at NAFTA and how it has adversly affected the Canadian econonmy. New Dem insistence that the deal include labour standards were ignored by the governing Libs. I want to point out that Chretien promised to to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA but negotiated two supplemental agreements with Clinton. Also, the Liberals were given a chance to roll back the GST; again another promise. They didn't. Then under Martin, there were additional cuts to the Federal budget which hurt people in a very meaningful way. Now under Ignatieff, we see the Federal Liberals endorsing an ongoing prescence in Afghanistan, sans debate.
When you look at the above my point becomes clear. It takes more then saying you are a "progressive" to make that so. What the above illustrates is that the NDP has truly walked the walk, in addition to talking the talk. Thinking the Liberals will have an "eureka" moment and start actually being progressives, is like waiting for a "Leopard to change its spots".
Nope, when push comes to shove, I am not at all willing to throw in my lot with the Libs. Sorry Mr. Cameron, really bad idea!
Thank you, duncan, for never fearing to state your opinions in the face of predictable responses.
I supported, wholeheartedly, the abortive coalition building attempt in Nov-Dec 2008. And I have never managed to understand the subtle distinction between building a coaltion after the election, and running to build one during the election.
I also have a serious problem with the view that "but.. but.. but.. that presumes that the Liberals and Greens are progressive!"
I don't believe those parties are "progressive". Sadly, I don't believe the NDP is either. And I don't think that elections determine the true balance of power in society, because they don't upset the control of the economy by a tiny handful of billionaires.
Perhaps that's why I don't freak out at the notion of empowering Canadians to leave aside petty partisan prejudices for a moment and uniting to destroy the Harper gang. Think of it as learning to flex our muscles - actually making something happen, something out of the ordinary - and telling the world that we don't tolerate what Harper is doing to this country.
We don't have to sell our souls to do so. I hold my nose and vote NDP, Bloc, QS - even though I often find very distasteful aspects to the party or the candidate. I try to be nice to my neighbours, too. But when the time comes, it's allowable to unite with all kinds of people (even people like me, lord knows) to accomplish a greater aim.
I haven't sorted out how I feel about your proposal, duncan, but a good starting point is to reject the superficial criticisms.
Thanks again.
I have a serious problem with the idea that putting Michael Ignatieff into 24 Sussex Drive has anything to do with "empowering Canadians". If I thought otherwise, I would vote Liberal. The fact that I don't has nothing to do with "petty partisan prejudices".
If that's a predictable response to this destructive, desperate proposal, it's because it is the only reasonable response.
Since the Greens don't have any seats and probably won't after the next election, it's meaningless to talk about including them in a coalition. And an anti-Conservative coalition that does not include the BQ is doomed.
As I said, "I haven't sorted out how I feel about your proposal, duncan". I was more inclined to start by rejecting the superficial criticisms. As for Boom Boom's point, that goes to the heart of the matter. The 2008 coalition brought the Bloc onside, at least in terms of signed support if not cabinet seats. If that much isn't achieved - or even attempted - Duncan's idea is doomed to failure, and deservedly so. A government without the support of Quebeckers will never enjoy my support.
If the Bloc is left off to the side, there is the possibility that any NDP-Liberal coalition could be out-maneouvered by a Conservative-Bloc one if they do indeed wind up with a higher total of votes. Sadly, I wouldn't put much past Harper. He's in it for the power and sometimes I think he'd sell his soul to hang on to it. Just a thought.
Quite right, Elizabeth! And it seems some in the NDP would have it sell its soul for just a few seats at the Liberal Cabinet table (not even actual power). Just a thought.
Not so fast with that coalition...