That's Brain Topp summing up the Coalition attempt in an interview with Adam Radwanski.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090422.WTopp23/BNSt...
Most of the interview is "what now" stuff. And that comment was meant to put the Coalition thing to bed.
But I liked the quote also for its general utility, so I used it as the thread title.
I'm sure Brian would aggree that the undertaking for a Coalition has lasting benefits for the NDP and for the country. But as far as the here and now.... even if you don't agree [as I don't] with the many babblers who think the coalition hurt the NDP, it clearly isn't doing anything to build support. As one would expect for a failed effort.
One thing he cannot say in an interview is that he knows that the Liberals are just posturing, that even come Fall the polls are going to have to come around much more in their favour before they are willing to trigger an election.
So when asked about what is expected that translates into his"we'll do our thing in Parlaiment" [since the Liberals now have no interest in a coalition or in an election until everything points totally in their favour].
To Radwanski asking about the blogoshere rumour that the NDP would propose to the Conservatives a PR referendum Topp responded to the substance of the issue rather than the "inside Ottawa" politics:
Democratic reform is a real issue, no doubt about that. An electoral system that awards an MP for every 22,000 Bloc voters and not a single MP to 900,000-plus Green voters is not serving the country well. And then there are the issues around responsible government profiled in December.That said, I think it's a safe bet the New Democrats will be much more focused on what the economic crisis is doing to Canadian families - and on what the national government can do to help them.
The Liberals will trigger an election when the Conservatives have well and truly be made to wear the recession and when it is clear that things will be better about the midway point of a Liberal term. Fall may be just to early for them to feel this scenario is operative.
I have been predicting a late fall 2010 or really early spring 2011 vote for some time. I see nothing to suggest we will actually see a vote in 2009. Harper will want to cling as long as possible if a majority seems out of reach, as it does, and the Bloc has no reason to join a takedown. It will be some time yet before those sign posts need to come out the collective garages of the nations sign crews.
These things are rarely so simple-- I think the initial push for the coalition was not damaging to the NDP. If any party suffered it was the BQ as it was admitted from the start by everyone including the BQ that it could not play any role in governance. It is one thing for a party to run that has no chance of a majority, something the BQ has known and never had a problem with, but this is different. That its position on confederation excluded its MPs from a role in government or even deciding government including the removal of a government seen as damaging to Quebec is a problem. It was also a problem for the country as we cannot have first and second classes of MPs. Canadians who were so offended by the fact that the BQ had a role to play in the minority ought to consider this. They pushed for the BQ MPs to be discounted and disrespected by other parties and a minority effectively promoted to a majority. I do not think this will play out right away but I believe it will be a factor in the next campaign. I fear we could end up with nationalists staying at home and leaving the federal scene -- this would not be healthy for democracy.
As far as the Polls and comments on Mulcair in Quebec, we have long seen that when NDP vote goes down it concentrates into incumbent and winnable ridings, this is what makes seat increases so difficult- often there is a huge hill to climb to go beyond incumbent ridings to win more. It is just as likely that the NDP vote outside of Mulcairs riding has flatlined (for now) but that he is holding on. Certainly, in the last election the NDP believed he was safe and spent a lot of resources trying to give him company. I am sure that resources will be concentrated to hold his seat in the next election especially if NDP provincial numbers are low. I would not write off any NDP incumbent-- over history you will see that NDP incumbents are generally difficult to dislodge.
As far as the NDP damage, I think the party suffered badly by misplaying the budget. This might pass, but it may yet be possible that some long-term damage to Layton could come out of this. I think it is disastrous to announce how you will vote on a bill before you have seen it-- that looks politically opportunistic, closed and arrogant. The damage to the NDP coincided with statements that the NDP would not look at the budget before deciding how to vote (those comments began in December). The initial decision to be part of the coalition, likely was not a huge problem although the "separatists and socialists" comments did resonate with many.
Still, what we have seen since is that the Conservatives have been largely discredited, Harper is increasingly unlikeable even to the fuzzy middle, and state intervention has been found not only to be an option but at times essential so the simplistic right wing rants have been hollow of late. You would expect the NDP to do better in this context and they are starting to.
Looking to the future, Ignatief is untested and right leaning-- even in so far as he may yet end up popular this could shield the NDP to some degree. The loss of votes tot he Greens is muted as I think most of the parties have lost some votes there so the effect on any one party is much lower than the overall Green numbers. Still for the NDP to make progress pulling back the somewhat disproportionate bleed to the Greens is important. We need to remember that the NDP rarely does well during unpopular Conservative governments when the Liberals are in opposition, but does better when the Liberals are the unpopular government.
I think the bigger opportunity we have now is not electoral but perhaps long-term. The party has to define itself and its social purpose and increase the numbers of people who identify with this. Given recent history and economic lessons there are real opportunities there. This might be a time, unlike recent elections, not to increase the party's reach into the mushy middle but to extend the base, even if this does not add many voters in the immediate. If that base can grow from wherever it is now then the next time the party asks to borrow votes or get swing support the total will be greater. There are intellectual arguments that need to be won-- now. The party has to engage its core philosophy and relate individual policies to that in order to increase its base. This is not a time to concentrate on store-front window policies as you do during an election but the promotion of a social purpose and philosophy. The poll gains may be less immediate than while testing individual specific policies but will create longer term understanding of the party and support and a basis for those store-window policies to come in the future.
As far as the leadership, the party has to make sure that the leader is out there engaging Canadians where they live in communities-- and listening more than speaking must be the impression people get. Layton should host some kind of participatory process for Canadians to get involved in the kind of government they want. I think if he is able to do this, then any past damage will be forgotten but if he cannot get this off the ground then his leadership will have seen its best days. The process must be branded, open, popular, perhaps even be presented as less than partisan as a new governance initiative-- how we respond to a changing world, how we modernize our democracy including technology, how we get beyond the sense of distance and bickering Canadians see their political leadership. The party could even as the process moves forward reach out of the party inviting others to participate even if theya re associated with other parties in the discussion- that it is an NDP initiative won't be allowed to be forgotten. (That was an Obama tactic.)
The next election could be a disaster but it does not need to be and it might turn out very different that people think right now.
The "inside Ottawa" politics about the referendum on proportional representation is that the rumour took the form of the referendum in return for the NDP propping up the Harper government.
It was unequivocally denied by the NDP, and didn't really make any sense. Harper knows he doesn't need support in the House until after the Liberals change their real tune- and that isn't for at least many months. Anything could happen by then, so how do you make a deal for support later?
Maybe the rumour more or less spontaneously generated. But it does happen to coincide with a blizzard of hints and innuendos and suggestions meant to put the Liberal Party in a more favourable light going into their Vancouver convention. Since most of this stuff is somewhat or way under the radar, presumably its meant for internal consumption.
But not bringing down the Harper government has not gone away as a sensitive issue within the LPC. So deflecting attention to the NDP [supposedly] propping up Harper is of benefit. Even a rumour without legs on the public stage is good enough for internal consumption.
I'm actually amazed that such a far-fetched rumour even got as much play as it did. I mean what if I said here and now "I hear a rumour that Stephen Harper is going to resign and that the CPC is then going to merge with the Liberals and Ignatieff is going to become to leader of the new party". Would it suddenly start being taken seriously just because I as an anonymous person posting on a blog said it wa so???Or what if i started a rumour that Michaelle Jean agreed to prorogue because Harper physically threatened her behind closed door and Rideau Hall and gave her a black eye that she covered up with makeup? Does that get taken seriously just because I said so?
Seriously, doesn't a newspaper like the Globe - for all its faults - have any standards whatsoever as to whether or not a rumour should be taken seriously or does Steele get to just say whatever he wants no matter how fictitious.
I wouldn't fault the Globe.
Steele is a good columnist. He doesn't just write fluff. Based on what he does, why would/should the eds be checking up on everything he says in what is at bottom an opinion blog?
If anything, fault Steele for using his credidibility to peddle Liberal disinformation.
On the same day he mused that maybe the NDP isn't in financial shape to be fighting an election soon. I think that intent-wise thata more of a gross deflection [not to mention inversion of the reality] than repeating the referendum rumour.
I don't necessarily expect the Globe to fact check every single assertion he makes in his column, but when the headline and main story of an entire column is based on a totally far-fetched made-up story - isn't it the role of an editor at the Globe to say "hey Andrew, do you have any actual evidence that any of this is true or is it just a figment of your imagination?" I wouldn't actually object if Steele wrote the column as a sort "imagine if such and such happened..." but he tries to pass of his fantasy as if there were any truth behind it.
I just realized that I was mistakenly attributing this far-fetched rumour to Andrew Steele. it was actually Robert Silver.
Well, it's time to move on from the coalition debacle--except to say I fucking told you so.
The Liberals have handed us yet another opportunity, lately, in their championing the cause of E.I. reform. Considering what they did with it last time, it should be easy to discredit them to our advantage.
However, when I hear Mulcair on CBC radio refering to the great theft from the fund by the Liberals as a "transfer", it tells me the NDP is still married to the idea of bringing a knife to a gun fight, and throwing the Liberals a life line every time they get in trouble.
Here's an idea. Buy new thesaurus' for all NDP members, and black out all the diplomatic type words.
fer fuck sakes. People are pissed, at least run to the front of this parade and pretend your leading it.
Speaking of which.....
Adam Radwanski: That focus, more specifically, will revolve around EI reform for the foreseeable future...?
Brian Topp: Our leader and caucus have been out stumping the country to consult about the economic crisis, and will be reporting their conclusions this spring.
I believe many Canadians have been telling us that income security in a key issue, to be sure. The means to address this matter likely include public and private pensions; child benefits; tax measures; and employment insurance.
Some of our friends on the red team have been talking in the press about using EI as a gadget to force the rest of the opposition to bend to their electoral interests. My bet is that Canadians will be more interested in seeing income security addressed seriously. We'll see at the time.
OK. The main substantive thing here is that the issues emphasised by the NDP will be much more than just EI reform.
But I haven't been paying attention to what the Liberals are saying about EI reform. I tend to glaze my eyes at what I know is just going to be bluster. So the part I highlighted- Topp talking about some kind of posturing manouver... anybody know what that is or might be? Its more than just talking about EI. Its trying to get the othe opposition parties to join in some Liberal grandstanding, or something like that, which is _______ ?
Canadians who were so offended by the fact that the BQ had a role to play in the minority ought to consider this. They pushed for the BQ MPs to be discounted and disrespected by other parties and a minority effectively promoted to a majority. I do not think this will play out right away but I believe it will be a factor in the next campaign. I fear we could end up with nationalists staying at home and leaving the federal scene -- this would not be healthy for democracy.
Or, they could redouble their efforts; elect more BQ members and either end up as the Official Opposition or deny a majority government for years to come.
"Well, it's time to move on from the coalition debacle--except to say I fucking told you so."
Sure, we could have NOt had the "coalition debacle" and instead had a far worse "debacle". The economic statement would have passed with Liberal absentions in November, we would have no economic stimulus at all right now. The Liberals, the BQ, the Greens AND the NDP would all be in bankruptcy court paying their creditors 20 cents on the dollar for every penny they spent in the last election and having to fire virtually their entire staffs, Harper would be as arrogant as ever and being hailed as the master strategist and would have his party, the media and the entire apparatus of government in the palm of his hand! Do you like the sound of that???
I think that in politics, you have to be willing to take risks. It was a risk to make a deal with Paul Martin in 2005. It was a risk to put massive resources into trying to win a byelection in a previously supersafe Liberal seat in Montreal. It was a risk to audaciously say "I'm Jack Layton and I'm running for PM" etc....The coalition was going to be a huge risk any way you slice it. The ultimate risk would have been if had actually happened and there would have been the constant possibility of the NDP and Liberals trying to outmaneouvre each other within the government and figuing out an exit strategy from the coalition before the next election etc...
But, if you never take any chances, you can back back to doddering along as a minor irrelevancy like back in the MacDonough "black hole" - where the NDP's idea of taking a risk was to say "vote for us because we are nice people".
"Harper would be as arrogant as ever and being hailed as the master
strategist and would have his party, the media and the entire apparatus
of government in the palm of his hand! Do you like the sound of that???"
I like the sound of Harper being solidly identified with the growing misery in this country, Like Bennet was in the 30's.
And now that Iggy Thumbscrews inc. have stumbled upon the too good to be true fundraising formula that the tories have discovered, dont be surprised if the Liberals suddenly see the wisdom behind Harper's idea to cut government contributions to political parties.
The Liberals we were so good in helping to resurect.
I think that in politics, you have to be willing to take risks.
Indeed. But calculated ones.
And now that Iggy Thumbscrews inc. have stumbled upon the too good to be true fundraising formula that the tories have discovered...
They haven't. They are just bullshitting. As far as I can tell it is mostly for internal consumption- part of trying to get the inadequete organization off its butt and into the century.
Despite the puffery, they are still a ways from having fundraising adequate to keeping up with the NDP and even the Greens... and WAY off what the Cons can do. Thats just a dream to hold out for the faithful.
They would still be in mortal fear of the ending of public subsidies- it just hasn't a hope in hell of reappearing.
what a load of tripe Steele posted in the Globe in response to this interview with Brian Topp.
get out the weeping violins everyone.
For Liberal bullshitting on fundraising and finances see:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberal-fund-raising-out-red-battle-blue
And for the bullshitting on progress on the organizational front:
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/liberal-party-turbocharges-ahead-ya
I do hope your assesment is correct.
But I'd still like to compare the party of Joe Volpe's list of donators to the names appearing on the tombstones in local cemetaries.
The only thing the Liberals are doing a better job is of getting maximum $1100 donations. They were always good at the big donations, but now those yield a LOT less total with the limits. All they've done ic corrected the incompetence and lethargy under Dion of at least getting those.
And maybe a lot of them are dodgy doubling and more up from the same actual donor- including maybe from dead people. But that takes more work than people would think. Its all squirrel in the cage stuff: run faster to get nowhere. And a distraction from what they know full well they must have to keep from going underwater, let alone catch up with the Cons: the wide scale fundraising tool-up that they have never done and have not yet even started... just keep talking about how great its going to be.
I was on a political panel last Saturday with Bill Siksay for the Canadian Department of Peace Initiative AGM. One of his comments was that he thinks minority governments may be here to stay making a coalition government inevitable some day soon. As politicians see the writing on the wall so to speak. This I think works well for the NDP and although the first attempts at a coalition may have stumbled or been misplayed whatever the opinion is out there, it doesn't mean a coalition government won't happen. A formal coalition between the liberals and conservatives is highly unlikely since the liberals won't want this association from a political perception. That makes a coalition between the liberals and ndp more likely and one that could work well. I don't think it will be an issue of having to convince Canadians first but a political reality to form one and show that it can work. The liberals want power back. If it becomes clear that they can't achieve that through a majority then their ambition for government may take them in this direction since they would be the senior partners and still in control of the main agenda and overall direction.
That makes a coalition between the liberals and ndp more likely and one that could work well. I don't think it will be an issue of having to convince Canadians first but a political reality to form one and show that it can work.
The liberals want power back. If it becomes clear that they can't achieve that through a majority then their ambition for government may take them in this direction since they would be the senior partners and still in control of the main agenda and overall direction.
First part, and everything above it- agreed.
As to the second: the prior question is whather the NDP and Liberals together can get a majority of seats. And for the next election at least that is looking doubtful. Either the Bloc is strong enough to have too many seats for a majority [without them], or if the Bloc is too weak to expect that when an election is possible, they'll prop up Harper [over anything] like they did before.
So although I agree with Siskay about minority governments in general, and about the potential for a Lib/NDP one doing well despite all the obcstacles now... I have doubts when this might be possible.
Which leaves us back at where we need to be anyway- what do we make of a situation where it appears Harper will govern until after tne next election, and the Liberals are just waiting. ????
Now Chantal Hebert today is adding her voice to the "NDP is panicing" meme. While she is a predictable joiner, its grating.
But I'm thinking there must be an opportunity in here. Everybody is down on the NDP. We're far from an election. The Liberals are not in the shape they pretend to be. Iggy is bound to dissapoint.
While all this is going on you position yourself _________
I think there are four scenarios in the next minority parliament that each open different possibilities:
Door #1: Another strong minority CPC (very unlikely IMHO) much like the current one where the CPC has more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. If that happens, the question becomes whether Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe want to recreate what was done last December. The circumstances would be different - people will have voted knowing that this was a possibility and it could be launched on election night with Harper never getting a chance to establish confidence in the first place.
Door #2: A weaker CPC minority where the CPC has the most seats but where the Liberals+NDP have more seats than the CPC - but still not a Liberal-NDP majority. This would be similar to what happens in case 1 - except that there would be the "optics" that the Liberals and NDP together would eb the government and that they together would have more seats than the Tories. They would still require passive support from the BQ - but so would a minority CPC government.
Door #3: A weak Liberal minority government where even with the NDP - they still need BQ support to get over 155 seats. i guess in this situation, the optics are even better for the Liberals as the largest party and then there would be a lot of spinning about whether Iggy wants to govern alone with a shaky minority - or if he wants a formal arrangement with the NDP. In a way, the NDP actually has more leverage if the Liberals are the second biggest party - because then the Liberals need the NDP's formal support a lot more badly.
Door #4: A strong Liberal minority where they can get over 155 seats with the NDP alone and there is no need to talk to the BQ at all. i guess if that happens, it becomes tempting to create a stable government with a formal agreement with the NDP and it would be seen as a such a natural arrangement that it might be hard for the Liberals to justify wanting to have an unstable minority government when they can have stability and without any involvment of the dreaded so-called separatists.
"I apologize I don't know how the multiple postings happened."
Actually, I thought it was some kind of clever performance art when I saw all the "deleted"s, mimeguy. :)
"what do we make of a situation where it appears Harper will govern until after tne next election, and the Liberals are just waiting."
I think NDP MP's have to ratchet up the rhetoric, and at least get in step with the level of anger out there, over the financial mess. I wouldn't have Jack do that-- better for him to play the reserved, reasonable card at all times.
Besides that, we are back to a "bite and hold" strategy. Pound the pavement in riddings we hold, and in riddings we stand a good chance of obtaining. And understand, once and for all, that in terms of strategy, the Liberals are our prime adversary and not the Conservatives. Every strategic and tacticle consideration has to be looked at through that light.
Option # 4 is the one implicit I think in what Siskay is talking about. If not what in his mind, then in terms of what can fly. Ergo:
#2 and #3 are dubious possibilities, because they aren't sufficiently stable animals to a GG.
#2 is a repeat of what just failed- and I think strong dependence on the Bloc is an unlikely political repeat. [If for no other reason than Iggy would rather wait than do that.] The optics of # 3 appear to be better when looked at abstractly, but the GG will only approve with a clear formal agreement from the Bloc. So it is hard to see how this option is any different in political feasability than #2: when it comes down to it, what diff does 'less dependent on the Bloc' make?
I disagree. We aren't talking about a novel situation like we had in December of an opposition coalition voting non-confidence in a Tory government that is already in place and already established confidence. If the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition that had say - 150 seats and they wanted to form a minority government and take their chances on getting BQ support or abtentions - how is that any different from Harper forming a minority government with no support from anyone?
Let's say that in the next election we had the following: 114 Liberals, 106 Tories, 51 BQ and 37 NDP
This would mean that a Liberal/NDP coalition would have 151 seats compared to the Conservatives having 106 seats. Either Harper resigns and the GG asks Iggy to form a government - which may or may not include the NDP - or - Harper tries to stay in power, loses the very first vote in the House and then the GG turns to the opposition and so what if the Liberals and NDP together are 4 seats short of a majority - the Tories are 41 seats short of a majority. In a way we would be to where we were after the 2004 election except that the Liberals wouldn't be the incumbent party.
A coalition under any parliamentary scenario will only happen when a Liberal leader says it may be an option during the campaign, and I don't expect that to happen in the next cycle. It is a lead-pipe cinch that all leaders will be asked about their willingness to be part of a coalition in a minority parliament, probably during the televised leaders debate. I think it is unlikely, that Mr. Ignatieff will see it as in his interests to say yes.
I believe that the events of last December have put coalition politics on the agenda, and that it is a good thing. I very much doubt that it has done the NDP any harm at all in the long term. I just think the current Liberal leader has no interest in sharing power under any circumstances.
Things change,of course, and the equation may look very different whenever we get around to an election. Even so, I think the only circumstances under which he would go for it would involve a clear majority of seats between the two parties, and a strongly dominant role for the Liberals in cabinet.
I think the bigger opportunity we have now is not electoral but perhaps long-term. The party has to define itself and its social purpose and increase the numbers of people who identify with this. Given recent history and economic lessons there are real opportunities there. This might be a time, unlike recent elections, not to increase the party's reach into the mushy middle but to extend the base, even if this does not add many voters in the immediate. If that base can grow from wherever it is now then the next time the party asks to borrow votes or get swing support the total will be greater. There are intellectual arguments that need to be won-- now. The party has to engage its core philosophy and relate individual policies to that in order to increase its base. This is not a time to concentrate on store-front window policies as you do during an election but the promotion of a social purpose and philosophy. The poll gains may be less immediate than while testing individual specific policies but will create longer term understanding of the party and support and a basis for those store-window policies to come in the future.
I could not agree more with this part of your analysis. Still, the NDP seems far away from developing a coherent road map to take these types of strategic actions. Hopefully I am wrong, and there is more behind the "store-front window policies" of the current NDP approach than meets the eye.
I think you are right on that scenario. It isn't just a matter of who the GG can do right after the election
So it changes what I would say about your Options 2 and 3.
Those options would have coalition stability and optics issues [and the reverb between] that the Cons could play on. But those would probably not fundamentally alter viability. And chances are good the Cons would be on their way to choosing a new Leader- acknowledged or not. Even if not, the possibility itself would make their options less stable too.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the Bloc and Cons have a common interest in never letting happen an election that could produce such an outcome.
My slow download does not keep up with the pace.
My comment above is agreeing with Stockholm. I still agree with his points, but I think that is trumped by what Peter3 pointed out: that the leaders are going to be forced to make a clear statement about coalitions, and about "what if that reequires the Bloc's support [of any kind]?"
While not impossible for Iggy to weasel away from that, that just adds to all the other problems and his disinclinations. So I return to my previous surmise, which is also that through the next election we are not going to see a substantial change in the balance of power [let alone a coalition]... and that is even if the Cons drop seats. Which they could weather anyway, but the Bloc is likely to find the stalemate/gridlock useful in many ways.
So... here we are..
I think this can be over thought.
The economy is making common cause between various groups which have or do lean NDP in political sympathy. It shouldn't be that difficult to get everyone on the same page, and start trying to shift the national conversation. I mean, most of the work has been done for us by our opponents.
What was it James Carvel posted up? Can't remember-- this economy has made me stupid... damn, it's on the tip of my tongue...
Anyway. It's not rocket surgery, and I would rather look at the coalition choices sitting with 45 seats than 25, and cross that bridge when we come to it.
I think this can be over thought.
Agreed.
And that whether Coalition or something else exotic is in the cards later- its later, and if it is, it's still the same thing now:
Paliamentary balance is stagnant for at leat the time being. And its the economy.
Stupid.
I think there are long-time conservative party and Liberal Party supporters who are now leaning NDP. Earlier today, I met one of them whove switched allegiances. I knew him from years ago. He was very pro-free market and pro-conservative party point of view. I had a hard time believing I was talking to the same person, he is that jaded with things in general.
I got a pamphlet from Jack this week, compliments of Bill Siksay. It's well done, put together nicely, and doesn't ask for money, but does ask questions. It's one of those mail back campaigns that's designed to uncover pockets of support. I guess the reasoning is that if one person takes the time to respond, one could extrapolate that there might be a hundred who couldn't be as bothered, but hold the ideas expressed sympathetically.
While the pamphlet takes aim at the Harper's tax incentive for renovating houses only benifitting the wealthy, it stops short of mentioning that Flaherty's appointed special advisors includes someone who used to run Home Depot Canada. Wonder who came up with the tax rebate idea for mansion renovations, eh?
One big Family Compact, as usual.
Anyway. As I was saying above, lots of different groups are suffering through this economic meltdown. It's time the NDP worked to fascilitate a kind of congress of different groups, with the idea of coming up with a "mini manifesto", or list of policy demands so everyone can start moving the public conversation in the proper direction.
