defeating the Conservative/Liberal Coalition

MP Pierre Poilievre in every appearance on CBC's P&P keeps making reference to the "Liberal-NDP-BQ Coalition" when in fact his government continues in power only because the Liberals have supported his party in every confidence vote so far - so what we have in fact is a Conservative-Liberal Coalition running this country.

What's the answer to this, if any?

The only forms of government in Canada seem to be Tory Majority, Tory Minority, Liberal Majority, or Liberal Minority.

As has been since 1830.. ?

We also had a formal Conservative/Liberal "union government" during World War One.

Yup, and the 1917 election was the most shameful in our history.

NDP - BQ - Green Coaltion? Hey, I'm grasping at straws here!

Good question.  In my limited understanding of Chomsky, and the manufacturing of consent,  I could never figure out how we were ever going to turn consent to corporate rule into dissent,  when the media continues to promote the Tories, and to a lesser extent the Liberals.

If the left somehow found the money to start its own media, I don't see how they could get enough corporate advertising to survive.  The start of the new media of the internet, helps get the message out somewhat, but it still is overwhelmed by the old media.

Some NDP provincial parties by tradition or fluke, like in Ontario, manage to get elected, but they seemed constrained by the media atmosphere in which they govern.  In my Province, Ontario, Rae, who may not have been an NDP'er by ideology anyway, was so strickly scrutinized and criticized by the media, that he started on the defensive, and ended so totally discredited that the succeeding Harris gov had no problem reversing even the small steps that Rae took.

Since about 1990, western society has gone backwards, in terms of the position of corporate power.  If anyone can answer your question, and knows a way of reversing that-- hats off.

Sorry to sort of go into my 'all is hopeless' rant. You probably just wanted to emphasize that the Lib-Con coalition should discredit both parties, but I don't see it doing that.

I see nothing but Con/Lib coalitions governing for the foreseeable future.

Well I look at it completely different.

What we have is a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloq and Green Bourgeois coalition government at any given time at any given level of Government.

So how do we, the working class, beat them?

How about develop a working class philosophy to work from first?

Oh wait a sec, there already is one... oops, sorry, guess we all forget about it already.

Let me give you my two cents. Objective #1; get rid of Capitalism asap.

Which of the working class philosopies that have developed during the last 150 years are you suggesting we follow?

the only step right now that's possible is to either campaign like crazy and elect either the NDP/Green Party and build from there,  Or build a grassroots party like they did in bolivia with evo morales built on support from all the people marginalized by the traditional parties.

Short of that i think we're screwed.

It likely is not a politically correct observation but the only way to do defeat an effective Liberal-Conservative coalition is to break it up. This has its challenges both in the policies of the Liberals but also in the political interest of the NDP which seems to tend to think seeing the Cons and Liberals as identical is the best course. While that may or may not improve NDP seats it makes defeat of this "coalition" impossible since those parties between them continue to maintain a lock on the majority of seats.

Breaking up that coalition through working with Liberals to find alternate common ground may or may not seem like a conflict of interest. But if defeating the coalition in the short term is the objective, surely that is the only route at present.

Painful, uncomfortable pill to have to work with the unreliable Liberal party but that is the only possible realistic answer to the question.

Alternately weakening it by securing a stronger NDP is a second longer term track but that alone will not defeat the governing arrangement.

As upsetting to some as it may be this is in fact the only strategy available to a smaller force when faced with two larger forces working in concert with each other-- you need to drive a wedge between them. And the trick in this case is to do so without losing the purpose and attraction of the NDP as the better -- more different -- opposition party. It is a challenge and one the NDP leadership has struggled with for many years. These people are not stupid- if a simpler answer existed, they would have seized upon it by now.

So, on the one hand the NDP must define itself as a party where it is different from both of those parties and sell that value to the public. On the other hand it must exploit and run with any differences between the parties it can in order to secure working arrangements with the Liberals to drive them away from their defacto alliance with the Cons. Never said it was easy.

Another requirement for the NDP that some times we forget: The only places the NDP has been a real contender federally it has also been viable provincially.

By this I mean a contender for power-- I am aware of the alternation theory which is where some have said that people vote the opposite federally as provincially but often that is to the biggest force out of power not a weak provincial force. The alternation is in fact not planned but a reaction where people who wish to vote against the provincial party punish federal cousins.

To this end the NDP is the power or alternate power in BC, SK, MB, NS and these are the places the NDP run either first or second in seats federally (Saskatchewan is different but only because of distribution as the NDP runs second in votes but has been getting no seats while Goodale for the Liberals manages to get his seat.)

The NDP position provincially may be the key to better fortunes federally: noticeably the NDP is absent from the provincial politics of Quebec and weak in most other provinces not mentioned above. Improvements must be found in Ontario certainly as well as Alberta and the rest of Atlantic Canada outside NS. Building a provincial wing in Quebec is problematic due to the difficult balance that has previously existed in provincial politics there but I believe this is essential in the longer term.

In the longer term if the NDP is going to be a balance to the Conservative-Liberal totals at a national level it must be a contender as a provincial party in every part of Canada. We are a long way from that now.

It is also important to recognize that the federal party during the dark decade when it lost party status, actually shrank even more than that losing second place in many more places than it lost first place-- several incumbents hung on but the party was wiped out as a force in many places where it did not have seats but was building on the ground. Over the last three election much of this has been restored so that the NDP has a wider base with more areas to build from than it has ever had before. Still, there are many places where the NDP is just so far back that even a major boost in votes will not increase seats. Much has to be done to increase the numbers of potential seats and of course this is a scramble for resources as resources are naturally most often directed to immediately winnable seats.

There's a lot of grist for the mill in Sean's last two posts, and I agree with most of it.  One area I expect we may benefit from new provincial prospects is New Brunswick after the forthcoming provincial election (by the way, send money: they need it badly down there to take advantage of the openings they have).

But, I popped in primarily to post this very interesting column from Lawrence Martin in today's Globe, in which he argues that there has been a marked change in the Harper administration between the early stage run by Ian Brodie, and the later phase as managed by Guy Giorno.  Anyways, worth a read if one wants to understand the changing dynamics on the other side.

Travers: Stephen Harper Changes Canada by Changing Politics

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/stephenharper/article/842374--travers...

"Canadians are now living through the fifth year of a phenomenon. Flipping political history and conventional wisdom upside down, a federal party has taken and is holding power by leading the country where it doesn't want to go.."

Ya the working class doesn't want to go in the direction that the Capitalists extremist (Harper and the conservatives) want to take it.

But the ruling elite do, as exposed by the lack of political will to defeat this government.

So there ya go. Whos really in charge of the bourgeois state of "Canada"?

How do you defeat the Conservative/Liberal bourgeois dictatorship?

You can start by accepting reality. The Capitalists are in charge and you must form a working class movement to defeat them.

I suggest we base the movement on a socialist type of economy. Let me add , I don't mean a Social Democrat economy, were the capitalists are left in charge.

I think Sean is politically and factually correct- to defeat the Liberal Conservative coalition, we have to break up that coalition and bring forth an alternative.  Most post election scenarios have no party,  Liberals, Conservatives, NDP or Bloc having enough seats to form a majority government and the heat will be on the Liberals-  do they  back the Tories or are they willing to work with an alternative government?  Great credit to Jack and the team for putting a new politics on the national agenda. GO JACK GO!!!

I think the electorate knows to play off the Conservatives and the Liberals against each other, but I am not sure that calculus applies to the NDP. In Ontario in 1990, people were still fed up with 42+ years of Tory rule, and they were angry at the arrogance of Peterson calling an election when his poll numbers were in the stratosphere.

There is still some resentment out there at the perceived corruption in the Federal Liberal Party, which may make them similar to the 1990 Ontario PCs still as the Party Which Still Needs a Rest. And then again you could match the current federal Tories with the arrogance of Peterson.

To beat the Lib-Con coalition, as it is put here, the electorate has to be equally angry at both, and it seems for different reasons. "A pox on all your houses" is simply not enough.

I suspect the NDP plans to outline a vision in the next election and call on the Liberals to work with him or Harper to avoid the kind of non-presence they have had for the last 4 years. The visions will be completely different and really no fence-sitting or compromise available between them.

This would be the right move for Layton.

The Liberals do not actually have a right move if they can't win for the third time-- the last time the Liberal Party failed to govern for the third time straight after an election -- the Conservative leader was John A. Macdonald. However, they do have a less bad option.

If the Liberals can't win outright, and indeed, I think they can't, if they do not work with the opposition to govern it will be the first time in Canadian history that party has been AWOL for such a long time without either opposing (voting against the government trying to interject their own policies or defeat it) or running the government. It would be hard to imagine that party as being relevant after a threepeat of this sorry position.

If they do work with Layton then the Liberals are acknowledging a shift in Canadian politics that would see the NDP as a contender for national power. If they don't then they are acknowledging a shift in Canadian politics where the Liberals are no longer considered a contender for power. Sure you want the job Iggy? In any case it is less bad to let the NDP in than to bow out leaving the Cons as the only party able to govern.

Another point that people do not realize: Harper is the most powerful PM this country has had in a long time -- for another reason than some acknowledge. His minority is stronger than a majority due to political dynamics.

A majority PM has to speak to and compromise with a majority of parliament and a large plurality of Canadians. In order to maintain the majority that PM must cater to a mainstream view and is somewhat moderated by that reality.

Harper has no such constraints. As minority PM with only the more right-wing constituency to be concerned about he can avoid catering to a large number of Canadians and narrow cast his policies to "just enough" to keep him in power. As long as he has more support than the next party and as long as he can discredit coalitions, he can have a minority vision govern the majority. That vision is much more united and easier to manage than any larger plurality and Harper can discredit opposition as being "politically motivated" rather than founded in public will or good policy.

Mulroney with his massive majority had to cater to Quebec and Ontario and a middle line of thinking that moderated his vision and the even more extreme vision of some of his MPs while Harper, with Quebec in opposition hands and Ontario divided, does not have to consider any vision other than his own. As such, his minority is more powerful than any majority has ever been. All Harper has to do is count on the Liberals to fall for his political traps from time to time and mount an aggressive, well-moneyed, well-supported in the press, campaign that never stops. With this he may have a run as PM longer than some who had majorities without ever having to even acknowledge the existence of a majority opinion.

He has managed to see through the lie of the FPTP system to show how a majority is not as useful as a working minority if managed cunningly. He has managed to bring and maintain a government that the majority of Canadians hate but cannot remove.

I know many here have stated that the Liberals are just like the Cons but in fact that is not true- it is not that they agree with the majority of Harper's policies (although they are naturally closer than NDPers to them), it is that the Liberals have managed to become so useless that they serve no other purpose than being Harper's pawns-- taking up space in a way that suits Harper. The Liberals by consuming that space make opposition party rule impossible and they also prevent more moderate Cons from residing inside the Con party keeping moderate opposition out of the Cons. This maintains the Cons as the most right-wing reactionary government we have ever had with the least public support ever.

This is why I concluded that the Liberals have become more than anything, the waste of space party. They are just as useless to their own vision (such as it is) as they are to any wider opinion.

As I have said the only answer is to somehow manipulate the Liberals away from the Cons and break up that connection. Therefore those who disagree with Harper need the Liberals even though the Liberals do not deserve this position of purpose and perhaps remain incapable of rising to the occasion. Harper remains the smiling cat in the middle of a broken system.

Sean I have long said that. They use the muddy the water tactics all the time. Making them unaccoutable for their governments decisions. Its a complete free ride. Either use, the liberals did this years ago, the libs go along with it, or the libs made us do it. We never wanted to spend stimulus(on our ridings only snicker) the lefty commie alliance made us do it. Oh did I mention how we have kept the economy afloat with our governance. The libs allowed the budget to pass so it must have been a good budget! I am pissed at the plant known as iggy wasting space in the house.

I agree with sean on that issue as well. There is most definitely a difference between the two. It is fairly large in certain ways. But less so than say the NDP-libs. Ask a conservative in ontario what they think of the parties. Libs are porkbarreling a holes that tax and spend. The NDP are in your bedroom(really?) want to control every action you do more than a communist(they love using that word)and are tax tax tax bring the economy to a crashing holt. SO even they know they are closer to the libs than we are.

Or to put it accurately, they see the libs as the other faction of their family, yeah they disagree but they are still blood, while the NDP are the foreigners down the road with different customs...strangely they live in a small gated community where its all family while the majority live in a sprawling metropolis where the NDP are. Problem is that metropolis also views the NDP as those foreigners cuz they don't like our accent despite us being nice.

As Sean observes "the only answer is to somehow manipulate the Liberals away from the Cons and break up that connection. Therefore those who disagree with Harper need the Liberals even though the Liberals do not deserve this position of purpose and perhaps remain incapable of rising to the occasion. Harper remains the smiling cat in the middle of a broken system."

I conclude that the Liberal Party must be persuaded to join in a pre-election Democratic Alliance with the NDP and Greens to overcome the serious overrepresentation of Conservative and Bloc voters. This would involve pitting a single standard-bearer against those two parties in 30 to 50 ridings and by doing so gain a majority in Parliament.

The precondition to such an alliance would be (a) a promise to legislate an agreed democratic voting reform during the next parliament and (b) a short agreed policy platform sufficient to sustain the Liberal/NDP/Green coalition government for two to three years -- long enough to put the new voting system in place.

This is where the Liberal Party must go if it seriously wants to end its embarassment and  remove the Harper government. Can it be persuaded to make the move to representative democracy? It is at the moment a weak party with few members -- so those who want democratic change, if they are serious,  could supply it with new members and, in effect, threaten to become the Liberal Party. That would catch leadership attention.

Thanks in large part to the restructuring of the party system that took place around 2003/4 with the success of the "Unite The Right",  no party has been able to form a majority and coaliton options rule the table. Liberals, NDP, Bloc  are all considering different ways of working together including the options sugested, with an emphasi on post- election positioning and bargaining (if we have 100 seats how many ministries do we get as opposed to if we just had fifty seats ?)   GO JACK GO!!!

I'm a bit sceptical about the Liberals under Iggy being open to any kind of alliance or coalition with the NDP, let alone the BQ. I think the more seats the NDP gain, the more the Iggy-led Liberals will be inclined to shore up the Conservatives. Too bad Dion was replaced - he was the last Liberal leader open to the coalition idea with the NDP and BQ. I doubt anything much will change until the Libs get rid of Iggy.

Suits me as I am not in  favour of a pre-election arrangement as I view that as anti-democratic-- voters must speak first. The only pre-election arrangement should be that the parties would work together if they, between them had enough seats. I am against the NDP running less than 308 candidates in the next election.

On election night Ignatief will have to be in a position to form a government with the NDP or he is done. If he is the first Liberal leader since Macdonald's day to bring the Liberals in to their third time on the opposition benches he is history.

Indeed there is no leader certain to be around long after the next election: if Harper does not govern, he is finished. Likewise with Ignatieff. The BQ leader is likely retiring soon. May would be lucky if she makes it to the next election and Layton may also decide he has had enough although he is the most likely of them all to be around for the following election. Indeed the NDP could find themselves with a bit of an advantage if he did stay for the following one as well-- if anything, the benfit of experience may be an asset especially as the Liberals and the Cons may both go in with untested leaders. As well, I am not sure what Layton would want to do after politics.

What is truly appalling is the thought of another election with results much like the last three. What I view as undemocratic is the present voting system which normally leaves half the voters -- all those who fail to pick a winner -- with nobody to represent them.  Sean, is that really what you prize? Taxation without representation for half the electorate?

And by the way, a pre-election alliance of Liberal NDP Green tp bring democracy to Canada would make vastly more sense, and be far more saleable, than any post-election coalition requiring the support of the overrepresented separatist party. The main obstacle to the Democratic Alliance is that it requires the three parties, starting with the Liberals, to recalculate the relationship between the national interest and their partisan interest.

It is not clear that any of them are capable of or willing to do so.

The best way to defeat the Con/Lib coalition is to look and sound just like them. Victory by Conformity.

If you are suggesting that the bulk of the choice in the next election be removed in order to create a run-off against the Conservative I can't support that. I have no problem doing some arrangment with the Liberal party after an election but I will not vote for them. I am not alone.

I do not support the removal of choice for voters.

Besides what makes you so sure that the NDP, for one would even do better? There are Liberals who would sooner support Harper than vote NDP and seats the NDP cold win might be lost to the Cons in such a scenario. Removing most of the democratic options is not a substitute for a form of Proportional representation. It is a recipe to support the status quo for the most part.

John, think about it this way-- I personally lie in a riding held by a Liberal. I vote NDP and my vote is counted even though I don't have a candidate that wins. In your proposal I would not even have anyone to vote for.

Ok, since you all want to live in a world of Illusion, Ill play your game.

The Liberals had a choice between Iggy and Bob. Defeating the Conservatives was never in the cards. They choose Iggy because we would not working with the NDP. . As Bob was a form NDPer he would be able to work with the NDP easily.

So to defeat the Conservative/Liberal govenrment of Canada, The NDP has to help Bob take over the Liberal Party and then form an alliance.

What will this do for the working class... Absolutley nothing .. But it would feed into the illusions of a better world that some of the people on this site have.

So

Remember, Canada is not a democracy. It is a bourgeois state using the socio-economic philosophy of Capitalism.

You can not vote a party into or our out office. You vote for someone to represent you. That's the way the bourgeoisie set the system up.

Use their system to your favour. Defeat the parties from with in. Take down the government by infiltrating it. Have your people become members of the other parties and then betray the parties.

That's how it works.

People also suffer from the fallacy that things will never change, because they believe that past performance can predict future outcomes.  That has not been the case when things move quickly in politics, and I believe the conditions are lining up for the potential of big movements in the near future.

John, your proposal is a defeatist one, and I also agree that it gives the Conservatives seats you don't realize.  While I share your sense of the urgency required to unseat Harper, respectfully your approach to doing so is doomed to failure.

Also, the Liberals under Iggy will never agree to it, and certainly won't agree to proportional representation.  I'm not sure why people persist in promoting this idea, when it's so clearly unworkable.