Topp's Coalition Memoirs, part2

Outrageous is right.

Bankers getting $8.3 billion in bonuses

NDP slams 18% increase despite bad economy

http://www.thespec.com/Business%20News/article/688219

Now that we have all had to a chance to read Topp's accounting of what it is really like trying to work with the Liberals it should be clear to all that the NDP needs to avoid any dealings whatsoever with the Liberals. Just like you would with the plague.  

NR, I'm not sure I would come to exactly the same conclusion as you; never say never.  But he sure does point to the inherent problems, alright.  My take: if the Liberals have as disastrous a campaign as I think they're going to in April, they'll jettison Michael Ignatieff, and be knocking on our door with a new leader looking to make a deal.

Why, Thorin?  Given a choice between a far right party that is honest about being a far right party and a far right party that lies about it, why would you prefer to work with the far right party that lies about it?

How's about we simply build an electorally viable NDP and form a bloody government ourselves?

Malcolm, there will be no NDP government until the Liberals self destruct.

Coalition, phase two.

I loved Topps' review of the behind the scene negotiations and feel that the coalition model still has potential - for the NDP, Canada and even (ironically) for the Liberals.

I think Jack's fundamental conclusion that the NDP needs to find some way to reorder the game is the correct one.

Federally we are doing much better than we did under the two Alexa's, sometimes skirting 20% in the polls. Nothing to sneeze at but, ultimately, it limits what we can do to pursue policies that we support. We can be a conscience in Parliament, an organizing ally for NGOs in their lobbying efforts; we can even win small victories by leveraging our power in minority Parliaments (with differing levels of success depending on who we are trying to work with). What we cannot do is govern.

So, how do you change the game? One option (hope) is that we somehow supplant the Liberals through a combination of Liberal self-destruction, Liberal scandal, a broad collective political re-alignment of the electorate towards the left, and an unprecedented combination of NDP electoral success coupled with Liberal electoral disaster. Perhaps this is still a realistic goal (surely the Liberals have never been more ineptly led than they have in the Dion-Iggy era) but like almost every horror film you have ever seen, this undead corpse is very hard to finally kill off.

I am inclined to believe that even were we to cobble together the ingredients to bring about such a switch of position between the NDP and the Liberals we would run the very real risk of losing our identity. Much like the Labour Party in Britain under Blair, the need to occupy the broad chunk of the political spectrum ostensibly represented by the Liberals, we would, IMHO, lose our distinctly left positioning.

If you can't re-order the game by changing the players, then perhaps you can re-order the game by changing how it's played - double down on the coalition plan. Much of the outside criticism of the coalition plan centered on the role of the Bloc and the poor PR efforts of a divided Liberal caucus and its embattled leader, Dion, specifically the handy-cam from hell. Presumably both could be better handled if given a chance to do it again. The one criticism that had a ring of "truthiness" to it if not actual validity was that it was a plan that had never been put to the voters.

I agree that we elect a Parliament of MPs who legitimizes the government of the day through votes of confidence - the coalition was constitutionally valid but there was something to the point that on Election Day the prospect of NDP ministers in a Liberal PMs cabinet hadn't been put to the electorate. If we are going to take out the Tories through a coalition next time, then we need to do so expressly.

Now we can simply leave open the option to enter into a coalition should the policies and numbers justify it post-election (presumably with a combined Liberal-NDP majority without the need for Bloc support). I believe, however that the election campaign would become bogged down in coalition talk (forcing the Liberals to categorically deny any plan to enter into a coalition all the while fielding off, with Jack, "secret deal" questions from the media). Indeed, I imagine that whenever the writ is dropped the Tory attack-dogs will fire off Iggy's signature on the coalition deal to every fax machine in the country. If we (and the Liberals) are going to have to deal with this anyway, why not make a virtue of necessity (though I think there is inherent value in the notion in any event) and run on a progressive coalition agenda with an aim to not only deny Harper a majority but to replace him as the government. In order to truly do that the coalition would need to do more than have a joint program but would need to prepare an electoral coalition as well.

Sitting MPs, Liberal and NDP, would run unopposed by their coalition colleague and in seats where one coalition’s candidate ran a close second last election (the exact amount to be negotiated but say within 10%) that party's candidate would also run unopposed. Kitchener-Waterloo would have not NDP candidate; Surry-North would have no Liberal candidate and, hopefully, neither riding would be burdened with a Conservative MP next election.

So why would the NDP do it? For the same reason as we had last year. The prospect of bringing down Harper's government and getting a chance to actually govern - implement NDP policies at the national level -isn't something to be casually dismissed. Isn't gaining power the reason we run candidates in the first place? At a broader level, it becomes a game changer long-term. At some point the coalition will falter and we have to go back to fighting the Liberals but we will have established ourselves in ridings we had never held before and will have established a precedent that, presumably, NDP ministers are able to govern and govern effectively.

Why would the Liberals do it? They like to govern (at times they seem to think it is their god-given duty to do so) but the fact is they hold little prospect of doing so for the foreseeable future. A year ago at this time Iggy might have saw the chance to waltz into the PMO after a disastrous economic meltdown and create an election at a time and place of his own choosing, that plan stands shattered at this point on a couple of fronts (the economy is not as bad as it was presumed to be and Iggy's skills in orchestrating his political moments has been similarly exposed as less than originally advertised). Perhaps he can create the image of himself as a PM, but it is much easier to do so from 24 Sussex as opposed to Stornaway.

The grim fact that the Liberals need to face, recently remarked upon by Chantal Hebert, is that the Liberals have been unable to beat a unified Conservative Party since Trudeau bested Clark! The Chretien majorities were great times for the Liberals but those who have looked at the numbers must see that even with a weak NDP presence, it was not the Liberal strength that brought them their majorities but Conservative division.

The Liberals, maybe even more than the NDP (as we're doing close to as well as we have ever done) need to change the game too.

Thanks for the compliment Book, something not always available here :-)

I agree that my plan is only one of many possible options for dividing up "winnable" ridings. I think it unrealistic, and unnecessary, to divide up every riding. The truth is Red Deer is not going Liberal or NDP no matter who we put forward.

One issue that would need to be considered too is how this scheme would impact the financial bottom line of the parties if they are giving up votes in uncontested ridings would they presumably be able to recoup them in ridings where they are unopposed by a coalition candidate?

As for your point main, I'm in a hockey pool, and have been for years, so my first fall back alternative would be to have a draft of the available "winnable" ridings. Given both current seat count and vote % last election (and even current polls) there would be more Liberal picks than NDP. Not sure which system would be more favourable to which party - though in the end if the goal is to defeat Conservatives I suspect that there will be a great deal of similarity in the seats assigned to each party's candidates either way.

As for who the Liberals put up for candidates in the ridings we would not be challenging them in (remember in my plan existing MPs would be unopposed) there may be the temptation to pick a more right-leaning candidate if there is not left-flank to defend but if the Liberals picked someone patently unpalatable to most NDP supporters - would they come out and vote for that person? I would think not.

The reverse is true too. Just because we would not have a Liberal opponent in a riding does not automatically deliver us every former Liberal vote - in fact I suspect our voters would be more reliable coalition voters than Liberal voters - so it would be wise for us to nominate candidates that don't frighten away the very voters we hope to pick-up. That said, I suspect the prospect of recruiting "star candidates" increases if they know that they would be coming into a riding where it would just be them and the Conservative, non?

I too don't see the Liberals being outwardly interested either but things can change, and change quickly, in politics.

The Liberal dominance through the 20th century was based on many things but one key factor was their near monopoly in Quebec. (Yes, Diefenbaker and later Mulroney found ways to temporarily pull in the soft, and sometimes not so soft, nationalist vote as a counterweight but it didn't ). When the Mulroney coalition splintered the Bloc realignment in Quebec fundamentally changed the game for the Liberals - moreso than for us or the Conservatives.

They were, under Chretien, able to capitalize on the Reform-PC split to create their "false" majorities but with the reunification of the Conservatives, I don't see how the Liberals can hope for more than a minority win in the forseeable future. They may be prepared to live with that prospect for now but the Liberals don't fare well in the wilderness and I'm thinking that the attraction of regaining power, even if they have to share it with us, may prove overwhelming.

Steve,

Shortly after the last Alberta election, SEE Magazine published a poll of Alberta Liberal and NDP voters asking them what their second choice was.  Among Liberal voters, a slim majority picked the Conservatives.  Among NDP voters, a signifigant minority picked the Conservatives.

What this means (at least in the Alberta context) is that with one fewer opposition party, the Conservatives increase their majorities.  In Edmonton Calder, there was a Liberal candidate, but his campaign was very weak.  As a result, the Liberal vote dropped by about 10 percentage points. Most of that vote went to the Tories, who increased their share of the vote by 7%.  NDP MLA David Eggen saw his share of the vote increase by 3%, but it wasn't enough and he lost.  As a result, the opposition lost a seat to the Tories.

A similar result happened in Peace River, where the Liberals were unable to nominate a candidate.  The NDP more than made up for the Liberal votes (it helped that the NDP had a good candidate) but the Tory vote increased from 55% to 65%.

I don't know how these results would transfer today, given the rise of the Alliance.  But I suspect the Alliance could capture many votes that once were for the Liberals and NDP, making an arrangement between the two parties all the more dangerous. 

Obviously, these results might not translate to the federal scene.  But it's folly to assume that 1+1 will equal two when it comes to electoral coalitions.  It could easily lead to 1+1 equaling zero.

@ Ottawa Observer - Governing coalition deals are fine - AFTER and election.  That said, while the Liberals are more LIKELY to give us what we want in a coalition, it would be stupid of us to assume that the Liberals are the only potential coalition partners.  If, in coalition negotiations, the Conservatives offered more, we should not rule it out.  Even though we are more LIKELY to get a better deal, in the end, from the Liberals in that circumstance, ruling out other scenarios weakens our negotiating position.

@ JRoothman - The best possible outcome for Canadian politics is the utter destruction of the Liberal Party as a viable electoral force.

@ Steve Shutt - The problem with your proposal is that it is utterly unrealistic.  As Lou and others point out, Liberal voters, absent a Liberal candidate, are more likely to vote Conservative than NDP.  And while NDP voters, absent an NDP candidate, are more likely to vote Liberal, a significant minority (particularly in Saskatchewan, rural Manitoba and rural BC) are more likely to vote Conservative.  This does not account for the significant number of both Liberal and NDP voters who would simply stay home.

Using the last election as a basis, I have crunched the numbers.  There are only 64 constituencies where the combined Liberal - NDP - Green vote exceeds the votes of the winner - 55 Conservative seats and 10 Bloc.

* 45 Conservative seats where the Liberals were second

* 8 Conservative seats where the New Democrats were second

* 2 Conservative seats where the Greens were second

* 8 Bloc seats where the Liberals were second

* 2 Bloc seats where the NDP were second

I then calculated the net proportion of the other "coalition" parties vote the leading "coalition" would need to retain in order to take the seat.  That is NET retention.  If the leading "coalition" party lost by 500 votes, they need 501 NET votes to win.  If 100 votes shift to the Conservatives, the leading "coalition" party now needs 601 votes to win.

In the example of Simcoe North, for example, the Liberals trailed the Conservatives by 22%.  The combined Liberal, NDP and Green vote was 22.7%  The Liberals would need to gain a NET 96.92% of the NDP and Green vote in order to win.  If even 3.09% of NDP and Green voters stay home, and every single other NDP - Green voter votes Liberal, the Conservatives still win.  If 1.55% of NDP and Green voters vote Conservative, the Liberals cannot win.

Repeated Canadian Election studies suggest that the proportion of voters likely to stay home if their candidate is not on the ballot FAR exceeds 3.09%, and that the proportion of NDP or Green voters likely to choose the Conservatives over the Liberals is significantly more than 1.55%.  (As discussed, Liberals are actually MORE likely to choose the Conservatives over the NDP or Greens.)

I then calculated the electoral result using a 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100% NET retention.  It isn't until we reach 70% NET retention that the "coalition" forms a majority government.

This does NOT take into consideration how the electoral deal plays out in other constituencies.  Given (as oft noted) that Liberals would be MORE likely to vote Conservative than NDP, we can presume as practically a given that the NDP would lose at least nine seats (London - Fanshawe, Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay - Superior North, Welland, Edmonton - Strathcona, Western Arctic, Burnaby - Douglas, New Westminster - Coquitlam*, Vancouver Kingsway).  [Data used general election results - in the recent byelection, the NDP broke 50% in NW-C.]

More can be found at:  http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-retention.html

Frankly, the data would work out similarly in any election campaign.  Thus I conclude that there are three types of people who argue in favour of these daft and unrealistic electoral deals:

* People who don't understand politics

* People who don't understand arithmetic

* People who support the Liberal Party and would like to see the NDP and Greens commit electoral suicide.

Quote:

How's about we simply build an electorally viable NDP and form a bloody government ourselves?

I think the NDP & libs should gang up on the Tories (and the Bloc where necessary if possible), change the electoral system, hold a new election and then never have to think about "strategic" voting again. Yes, I know, the voters are supposed to be "election-weary" and "the liberals will never agree" to PR. Those are obstacles to surmount, not  necessarily deal-breakers in an of themselves.

Until the last few years I would have agreed that the Conservatives were the second preference of most Liberal voters. That view seems prevalent in this discussion but I don't think it is valid anymore.

Certainly it was the case in the CCF years. Witness the Lib/Con provincial coalition in British Columbia and how it took seats from the CCF.

But in the last few years there has been a greater difference betweens the Cons and the Libs and a lesser (arguably perceived) difference between the Libs and the NDP. After the cooption of the Conservatives by Reform and certainly during the Harper government, the Cons have lurched to the hard right. No one but the Cons call the NDP socialist anymore. And the Liberals have appealed in the dying days of the last several elections, often successfully, to NDP voters to defect to them as the best progressive alternative to the Cons.

In other words the perceived differences between the Cons and the Libs have grown and those between the Libs and the NDP have shrunk.

Indeed, in the last election, I remember polls showing the NDP as the most common  second choice of all other parties. Other polls have shown that up to 30% of Candians feel the NDP best represents their values, athough only 2/3rds of them end up voting NDP. Perhaps someone on Babble has access to those polls.

I don't doubt that a significant number of Liberals would vote for the Cons over the NDP in a straight fight but I strongly suspect, subject to some regional variations, that the NDP would get the lion's share. A bigger portion of the NDP vote would be trransferred to the Liberals where they are the alternative to the Cons.

As for the Australian model mentioned by Stockhom, it would certainly cost the Cons quite a few seats. One drawback might be that in Lib/NDP contests the Con vote would largely drift to the Liberals.

. Ken S seems to relying on his own perceptions as well.

Maybe we can resolve this by actually looking at the polls  from the last election which i remember as showing consistently that the Conservatives were the last second choice for voters for all other parties. I don't think i am misremembering this. Can someone actually produce the figures?

KenS wrote:

At a minimum: nowhere in the article does it say that Liberal voters would most frequently choose the NDP as their second choice. The article itself only says who gets the most second choices period.

Isn't that what I just said (and you quoted me as saying):

Unionist wrote:

Nicky's memory is correct, if you read his/her post as meaning second choice for all voters counted together (which is how I read it).

Now, what are these studies you're referring to, and what exactly do they say? Got a link? A summary?

Data from the Canadian Election Study (CES) are used by political scientists and cited in academic articles.  If you have SPSS (or use an open-source replacement for it, like PSPP), you can download their data files from their website.  There's a long history to the validity of some of the questions, from what I understand.  So, while you can poke around the data, I believe it takes some expertise to understand properly.  Long afternoons in the university library ...

There's a second question to consider, which is how likely people are to exercise that second choice rather than stay home. Another research question to consider: are the stated second choices of a party's firm supporters different than the second choices of their soft supporters?

I don't know the answers to those questions, but find the questions very interesting. Does anyone know of any studies that have looked at them in Canada recently?

Nicky, the ONLY available source which specifically discusses the likely behaviour of Liberal voters absent a Liberal candidate is the Canadian Election Study.

What the CES has CONSISTENTLY shown in election after election after election is that, absent a Liberal candidate, Liberal supporters are significantly more likely to vote CONSERVATIVE than New Democrat (if, in fact, they vote at all.)  HOW much more likely has varied from election to election.  The FACT of it has varied not a whit.

But even if we go along with your wishful thinking, that still accomplishes nothing.  In any riding won by the Conservatives, overcoming the Conservative margin means that the second party's NET gain must be in excess of the margin.  Thus, if the margin was 1,000 and the Liberal vote 2,000, the NDP would need to take 75% of the Liberal vote to have a net gain of 1,000 (1,500 to 500) - and that's assuming that every single Liberal would cast a second choice ballot.  If, say, 500 Liberals chose to stay home (or to spoil their ballots or to vote for a minor party candidate), then the NDP would need to carry at least 1,250 votes to 250 to have a net gain of 1,000 - an actual retention of 83.3% of Liberal voters who actually voted.

As I indicated earlier, there are three possible reasons you are advocating this "strategy:

* You don't understand politics.

* You don't understand arithmetic.

* You are Liberal who wants to see the NDP commit political suicide.

Since the thread is almost at 100 posts, maybe it's time to bring it back on topic.

Topp's book, [url=http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/How-We-Almost-Gave-Tories-Brian-Topp... We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The inside story behind the coalition[/url], is available beginning February 1.

 
To return to the debate about second choice voter support:
 
I have argued in other posts that:
 

1. Should the Greens fade away their support would go largely to the other opposition parties

2. Should the opposition parties combine, either by running joint candidates or through a run-off voting system, the anti-Conservative vote would be be consolidated.

Others have argued that there it is just as likely that the Conservatives would benefit or that cooperation among the opposition parties would have little effect on the outcome.

I have found a notebook in which I jotted down a few poll findings during the last Federal election campaign. I believe they support my position.

1. The final EKOS poll of the campaign: second choices: Con 8.3%; Lib 17, NDP 19.5, Green 4.6, Bloq 17.6 (presumably just in Quebec)

 2.  An EKOS poll for British Columbia . Sept 23. Second choices. Con 9, Lib 22, NDP 20; G 18

  3. A Harris Decima poll. Sept 30. Second choices: C 14; L 26; NDP 30; G 24, B 3. 

This was further broken down by parties:

Among Con voters the second choices were: L 38, N 29, G 25

NDP voters: C 20; L 44; G 30, B 5

Green voters: C 18, L 37, N 38, B 3

Bloq voters: C 5; L 21; N 43; G 28

I did not write down the Liberal second preference numbers but a reasonable extrapolation , given the other numbers, might seem to be: Cons mid-teens, NDP mid-20s; Greens about 20

  4.  An unattributed poll of second choices among Greens: L 24, C 14, N 26, B 6.

  5.  A Strategic Council poll Oct 7-9 on second preferences in Ontario;

 Overall: C 13, L 21; N 25; G 18

Con voters: L 27; N 24; G 13

Lib voters: C 23; N 39; G 21

NDP voters: C 15; L 40; G 31.

Green voters: C 19; L 27; N 35