babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Hey I'm sorry about that thread with the Kathlicks. It's not easy accepting that someone has made a better argument than myself
The GG doesn't give a shit who's going to be in the cabinet. She just needs to have demonstrable assurance that the Liberal leader has the confidence of the House. She doesn't have to have an assurance that the Liberals will continue to have the confidence of the House for any particular guaranteed length of time. As far as she's concerned the House is entitled to vote non-confidence at any time. Nobody's hands have to be tied in order to satisfy her. The guaranteed 2½ year honeymoon is to give comfort to Iggy, not the GG.
M. Spector, you're wrong. If the NDP gets cabinet ministers then it HAS formed government and that is exactly the way it will be sold and will be perceived.
ETA: Furthermore, unless babblers have lived in any of these places, it is worth trying to understand that the achievement of NDP cabinet ministers in any of Alberta, Quebec, and Newfoundland & Labrador would be the making of an almost unimaginable dream for many NDP supporters in those provinces. If you think it's hard to campaign or keep the faith for the NDP in Ontario, BC, Manitoba, or Saskatchewan, then think about the NDP volunteers of NFLD, Alberta, and Quebec. The effect of having a federal NDP minister on the party grassroots in those provinces would be something to witness- especially for a lot of the old timers there. Give me that over a 308 riding strategy any day.
Of course she doesnt. And if it's not butter, might as well just go with the Harpers. They're pretty convincing themselves with 143 seats. It would have to be a fairly compelling reason to handover the reins of governance to an oppo party that placed a distant second. GG's not going to be convinced with a half-hearted,
"Ya go for it you Liberals. But don't expect us to support anything you say or do whatsoever over the next 18 to 30 months. We want the same elbow room to vote against and block and holdup and maybe even side with the Harpers like the devils we can be", from the NDP. That's not going to work any better than what we have now. GG wants a firm,
"Because we wont turn on you like the wolf at grandma's house once inside the door", from that well known agitator Layton and crew. Smooth sailing and happy family all the way, and even doing some social democracy along the way, isnt that right, Liberals?
Uh! I wish I knew what really is happening in the GG's mind these days, but apparently she's off limits for interrogation by the public. Besides, she's blocking me for a vulcan mind meld. Darn!
Iggy better not be playin' baseball poker rules either. He's an unknown quantity, but it looks like he may be more acceptable to Canadians as far as opinion polls go. Personally I have no problem with Dion's image or his speaking abilities or the fact that Harper beat him. That's not saying much for Canadians to have selected Harper over Dion, if indeed Canadians do choose who they vote for based on who is head of a political party.
Forthwith asap pronto arivaderci undalay arrrrriba!
Yes, and most likely of all: Jack Layton is not a natural-born stand-alone critic. His experience on Toronto City Council, and in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, was in working with others and making things happen.
Getting Things Done (Nov. 7, 2005)
I think the Liberals wanted the NDP in a Coalition for entirely different reasons. Not for tying the NDP to a Lliberal agenda.
The Liberals are in the unique situation that they cannot go into an unstable situation of governing. It is just way too risky. Once they are in power they are exposed to the NDP pulling the plug on them. No party ever likes that kind of exposure, but for the liberals it is downright dangerous. An election would see them caught between two well funded and well organized opponents, while they have no money, even severely limited borrowing power, and general organizational infrastructure breakdown.
A coalition is the best way to ensure that the NDP does not seize some quick opportunity to pull the plug.
But what turns out of course is that the instability is along fissure lines in the Liberal party. They all want to get to power, however. But the institution is wedded to taking power when it is handed back to them. But all their failures in that standard 'strategy' leave some of them open for trying other things.
Its not just Iggy that would have continued failing and floundering before they would think of doing something with the NDP. But they weren't asked and now this coalition thing is here.
I agree with Stockholm. Iggy would never have agreed to launch into this- I would say even if it didn't conflict with his leadership train. But now it's here. And if he can become Leader in January, and Harper provides enough excuse to vote them down [or the public has become sufficiently tolerant of the coalition idea].... aw shucks, that bird in the hand looks awful good.
People put WAY too much stock in what everyones ideological proclivities are going to get them to do.
And Spector treats the coalition thing as way too black and white. IF the Coalition happens, the threat that the NDP pulling the plug on the Liberals does not leave. Doesn't matter how many cabinet seats: if the spirit as well as the letter of the agreement on policy doesn't deliver the goods, and what the NDP wants has popular support [which is a safe bet for the amount and type of stimulus the NDP will want], the NDP can pull the plug.
Yes, the NDP would be under a lot of pressure to conform to the Liberals dance, but it will cut the other way as well. If the NDP is not satisfied and thinks it has popular backing, the Liberals are going to have to swallow a lot of policy actions they don't like and fears about longer term damage that Coalition actions can do to them with Lib/Cons swing voters.
In fact, I doubt the Coalition could ever win a free vote among Liberal MPs. It has a chance because whoever is leading and their coterie has a shot at the brass ring. Iggy won't jump at it like the hapless Dion, but he isn't going to pass it up for the very uncertain chance to get it the way that conforms to carboad cut-out Iggy character.
Well, now you're contradicting yourself.
Here's the way it really works:
The NDP would have a "legitimate" reason to pull the plug if the Liberals don't conform to the very limited and vague policy agenda set out in the coalition agreement. But on all other issues, the NDP would have no legitimacy in killing the Koalition before the 2½ years are up. You don't give a government 2½-year carte blanche support and then tear up the carte blanche. That destroys your credibility.
Suppose the Iggy Liberals do all the things they said they'd do in the Koalition Kontract, but also make a deal with Obomba to send more troops to Afghanistan and promise to stay till 2013. That's not covered by the policy promises made in the Koalition agreement; it falls under the NDP's carte blanche promise not to move or support non-confidence for 2½ years. Pulling the plug over that would be a breach by the NDP of the Kontract.
Having the legal/moral right to pull the plug if the Liberals fail to deliver on what they promised is a characteristic of any tactical "Accord" on policy; it doesn't require a coalition agreement signed in blood.
The difference with a coalition agreement is that, as long as the Liberals do what they promised within the vague generalities set out in the agreement, the NDP is morally obliged to support (nay - defend) them on everything else!
And that's why the Liberals wanted a coalition agreement. Not because they want the NDP to have token representation in Cabinet, but because they are deathly afraid of an election happening in the next 2½ years. The NDP is giving them the comfort level they require.
If the NDP and the Bloc had made the deal with Martin that they have made with Dion, Paul Martin would have remained PM until this year. And the NDP would be punished by the voters for being Martin's lapdogs.
But they didn't. They retained the freedom to "pull the plug" on Martin despite the economic promises Martin made in the accord.
Why would the NDP give the unpopular Dion, the traitor Rae, or the torture-defending Iggy more support than they were willing to give Mr. Dithers in order to keep the evil Harper at bay?
The NDP did not pull the plug on Martin's Liberals. Martin called an election earlier than was necessary by several months. The NDP wasnt anywhere near the Liberal government when it fell aprart after several scandals undermined the country's confidence in their ability to lead. In 2004, Harper himself wrote a letter to GG proposing that a coalition of Reform Party retreads, rightwing Liberals, and Mike Harris castoffs form the federal government, if Martin's Liberal government failed.
Coalition Fondue Set
[edited to update the expired hyperlink]
Not so fast with that coalition...
When have US "Liberal Democrats" ever had to consider coalition with a third political party? Their labour unions were lied to and betrayed by US Liberals same as our's. The NDP can't make things worse for Canadian labour.
Those Canadians who are interested in change and who do bother to vote need rewarding for their efforts at some point. Our voter turnouts are already bad enough with two US-style right wing parties in Ottawa. We don't need to drift aimlessly toward US-style voter turnouts as well. FPTP has punished voters for too long. We need a fluke electoral victory somewhat in our favour for the first time in a long time. Canadian politics have drifted to the right, but now the two oldest parties are unsure of themselves and counting their lucky stars in hope that the phony majority gods will kick another one their way. It might not happen. Then what?
Thanks for reviving this thread, M. Spector. Those were exciting days for us all.
sounds like the Liberals fond imanginings, with a good healthy dose of propaganda, as opposed to "mutterings in NDP circles".
Interesting in its own right to bump this thread back into sight.
But the article has nothing to do with "Accord versus Coalition". Calling it sloppy thinking is charitable.
Just in that short bit already quoted upthread, let alone the whole article, there are numerous fallacies that the argument is built on.
For one thing, a governing coalition does not mean not running candidates against each other. Of course it means a commo progream for governing. Duh. Apparently he is conflating a governing coalition with what some people call a 'coalition' of parties for an election. They are two entirely differnt things. [And nomenclature wise, the latter is an 'alliance' as it was in the UK before the Libs and Social Democrats merged.]
Not only are they entirely different things, the idea of alliance is not being discussed in the NDP. Duncan Cameron and presumably a few other members floating some form of the idea around does not make for a discussion. There isn't one.
Having an alliance of parties, going into an election, does indeed strongly tend to lead to a meger. The UK Libs and Social Dems were explicitly on that track when they forged the alliance. And it is precisely for that reason that Dippers who know why an alliance really amounts to, are simply not interested.
But then, if we take Jim's Quail's concerns at face value- he has nothing to worry about, because the push for merger is his own fantasy.
There's a Honda Accord, but no Honda Coalition. hmmmm.......
I think we need a Spanish style popular front to oppose rising neofascism in the Puerto Rico del Norte.
You've been wanting to say that for over 2 years, haven't you? C'mon, admit it!
I think Boomer must be right. I've never seen one.
You know me too well.
Are Canadians more conservative? No
As long as we have FPTP there's going to be pressure to move toward a two-party system.
And just imagine how Canadians would feel about their country if they actually received EU-15 or Scandinavian style social programs in return instead of observing Tories and Liberals dinging up national debt followed by a decades of austerity at a time paying debt service charges needlessly to their banking friends. Our's will be a real country some day. We just have to do a little house cleaning in Ottawa is all, as in "clean sweep" with a new broom.
Consideing that social democratic countries like Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Noway, Switzerland, lead most international comparisons of countries, the NDP could use these countries as models for the kind of place that Canada should be.
The NDP should show Canadians that social democratic places in the world exist that are rated as having the best economies and while also having very low rates of poverty. Places that have accessible education, early childhood education, universal child care, and adequate housing, etc... for all. Places where foodbanks are unknown. Maybe some of the NDP`s campaign ad should feature such social democratic success stories?
As it is many Canadians think the NDP represents radical untried ideas that could not work in the real world.
You're living in the past, JKR. The social democratic utopias of Scandinavia were short-lived illusions.
Neo-liberalism Preys on Nordic Welfare Systems
Well if this is anything to go by, net social expenditure as a percentage of GDP, Canada is a bastion of neoliberal ideology compared to Nordic countries rating better national health statistics, more competitive economies, and lower rates of poverty even by European standards than Canada since Mulroney Chretien, Martin and now Harper.
The real myth is that the neoliberal voodoo is working in Canada. Jim Stanford paints a far less rosy picture of Canada's economy than private sector economists and right wing politicians have described to Canadians.
These countries, even when led by right of centre governments, are still well ahead of Canada in areas such as child care, early childhood education, anti-poverty initiatives, access to all levels of education, environmemntal programs, taxation, income inequality, women's rights, democratic choice, etc....
Right of centre governments in these countries have in most part kept the social programs established by previous social democratic governments. Hopefully these countries will return social democratic parties to power as part of a retrenching of their social programs.
Because these countries have proportional representation they are never saddled with far right governments as is common with FPTP - e.g. Thatcher, Reagan, GW Bush, Harper etc....
Yes, with real electoral systems like Nordic countries have, the arrogance of Conservative and Liberal parties tends to fade. Elections in Europe and Scandivia are more competitive and tend to produce governments that listen to their constituents for fear of being turfed the next time around. Democracy gaps in the five or so English speaking neoliberalized countries are now gaping divides in comparison with Nordic social democracies. In those countries, they understand why they pay high taxes and actually receive something in return. Here the bastards want to raise consumption taxes in bad times in order to make up for deficits due to their own failed ideology. Where do we even start with the lopsided comparisons?
It's hilarious to see social democrats so far in denial about the demise of the Scandinavian welfare state that they feel they have to become apologists for the right wing governments of those countries who have been dismantling the welfare state for the past 40 years.
Yeah we better not even think about Nordic social democracy. It's no better than Canada under a 35 year-old neolib stoogeaucracy. lol
The demise of the Scandinavian welfare state has been greatly exaggerated. The next decade or so will tell the tale whether these social democratic countries slide into mediocrity. That being said, these countries are still the world's leaders in human development. The NDP should be proud to say to Canadians that social democracies are the world's leaders in human development.
And even if these social democracies would slide toward mediocrity, they would likely be the first countries in the world to attempt more radical solutions to establish social equality because social democracy has left these countries with an indelible social conscience.