Coalition window is closing, says Persichilli

114 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:04

ottawaobserver

Quote:

Coalition talk simmers while Ignatieff drifts

The New Democratic Party is tired of being the conscience of the nation but not its government, and leader Jack Layton wants to change that. He has always promoted coalitions with other parties but the Liberals, aside from the stunt performed by Stéphane Dion, have been very coy.

Now, however, it looks like the window of opportunity for the Liberals to initiate a coalition with the NDP from a position of strength is rapidly closing. A Liberal strategist told me last week that "even Ed Broadbent, one of the strongest promoters of the coalition, seems to be having second thoughts. He believes that the chaos in the Liberal party is pushing many of our voters towards them."

And the NDP is increasingly interested in that section of the Liberal electorate. A source close to Layton told me last week that "one of our major sources for ideas are Liberal supporters." The strategist explained that many people advising the Liberals are "giving them a lot of ideas they don't know what to do with. We take these ideas and work with them ourselves."

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:07

ottawaobserver

The rest of the column contains some good reporting from inside both the NDP and Liberal ranks about the events of the past few days, and says the Liberals in charge don't want to talk about this, but there's a big debate inside the party on it, but meanwhile on the NDP side, they see a huge opening, and are thus backing away from the coalition idea in favour of just trying to poach more Liberal support.

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:14

Unionist

I was hoping for a [i]coalition[/i], where at least the NDP gets to keep its ideas. Not so, apparently, this anonymous NDP "strategist".

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:15

ottawaobserver

While we're at it, a column on what the Liberals should do this morning from Iggy's former (toasted) chief of staff, Ian Davey, pretty much proves that their thinking hasn't changed a bit: wait until the government defeats itself, attack, attack, attack, and release our brilliant platform during the campaign so they can't attack us (i.e., the Libs) until then.

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:19

ottawaobserver

Unionist wrote:

I was hoping for a [i]coalition[/i], where at least the NDP gets to keep its ideas. Not so, apparently, this anonymous NDP "strategist".

Well, a lot of the progressive infrastructure and academia (particularly in Toronto, but in Ottawa too) has targetted its policy work at Liberals in the past, thinking that they were the likely government. The NDP was getting frozen out of a lot of that contact in the past. My interpretation of what that person is saying, is that a lot of those folks are bypassing the Libs now and coming straight to us.

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:27

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

"...aside from the stunt performed by Stéphane Dion"???

Angelo Persichilli is an ignoramus, with the political instincts of a banana slug. The fact that he has finally caught onto the idea of coalition should be proof to any progressive that all the wrong people in the Liberal party are getting excited about it for all the wrong reasons.

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:43

KenS

Ill elaborate a bit on what OO just said.

We're not really talking about what directly appears in what the NDP puts forward. Nor are we talking about how progressive/left the 'ideas' are or are not. I would characterize it as mostly how to operationalize ideas. And the 'idea people' are different not because they have an idea per se in the way that is no different than any of the rest of us. What they have is time and commitment to plug away endlessly at the mechanics if you like of putting ideas into play. I think the ability to committ large chunks of time for indefinite periods of time has a lot more to do with why this is mostly academics, than does the expertise that is the only reason for their participation that gets attention.

These experts with time are not more likely to shop themselves to the Liberals because they are themselves more 'liberal'/centrist. A lot of them are into things as progressive as you could ever hope to see, and they shop themselves to the Liberals simply because thats trhe route they see with the greatest hope that their work will have some tangible effect.

Now, I would always argue with those people that there are a zillion compelling practical reasons besides the known and agreed problems of 'questionable perspectives' within the Liberal Party.... and these 'expert' types are in general not blind to how big the obstacles are that stand in front of their hopes.... but they plug on, and the LPC is happy to do what it can to keep them working in their camp.

But most of these folks are not partisans, and when the Liberal Party begins looking like a chaotic pack of losers, that not surprisingly changes things for them.

Thu, 2010-06-03 08:49

KenS

Ian Davey wrote:

Liberals need to make a determined effort to stop making themselves the target.

Well, it hasnt been for lack of trying.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:07

Boom Boom

I don't understand the thread title. How can a coalition window be closing, when there is no possibility whatsoever of a coalition until AFTER the next election?

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:18

#10

ottawaobserver

You make an excellent point, Boom Boom, but at Babble we're amongst the few who use the term correctly, whereas everyone else has been using it to mean willy-nilly whatever they feel like, from merger to pre-electoral coalitions, to quiet agreements to stand down in each others' best seats.

Still, even if Persichilli meant what we do by the term, it would be a given that the Libs and us would have to be doing some scoping work now to prep the way for a post-election coalition. It would appear that Iggy's office has backed away from endorsing any such work. Thus the window for them to work with us is closing, and our interest in solidying anything now, when we now believe they're vulnerable and a source of growth for us is probably waning as well. I think that's Persichilli's argument.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:23

#11

KenS

Agreed that Perschilli's political instints are dubious. And his articles about the Liberal are mostly driven by his attempts to play internal LPC politics.

That said, I think it was a level headed piece.

With the exception of this:

Angelo Persichilli wrote:

Ironically, at the same time the NDP is aiming at a number of Tory seats in rural Canada, there also is a high level of silent cooperation between the two parties in helping each other take Liberal ridings. It looks like Harper and Layton are preparing for a high-noon confrontation in the future, but first want to get rid of the Liberal nuisance standing in the middle.

"High level silent cooperation" ?? The word is 'complicity' [alleged complicity that is]. But like a lot of people he wants to imply active cooperation. But that silliness is easily ignored.

When you read what he says, even the people in both parties he is quoting whose words seem to throw cold water on the coalition idea, underneath it all is an obvious reality:

If a coalition happens, that is after the election. Of course there will be discussions- both inter- and intra. But it doesnt really change the nature of planning for an election- you are competitirs as much as when such discussions werent even on the radar.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:26

#12

ottawaobserver

I think he's talking about Parkdale--High Park on that one. Baird keeps mentioning in the House that Gerard Kennedy never asks him questions about infrastructure, and that he's met with Peggy Nash more often than Kennedy on issues about that riding.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:37

#13

KenS

I cross-posted with BoomBoom and OO. Agreed with OO's take on Perschilli saying 'the window closing'... except maybe that even he is saying 'seems to be closing'.

Window closing or seems to be closing- its all observation of trends of the moment. And even if those trends hold, and the parties are for different reasons mostly going their purely seperate ways [albeit with continuous bickering in the liberal tent]..... either way, even if there was more active scoping of the coalition possibilities, both parties are going to first of all be conducting business as usual in planning for the next election, because they have to.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:41

#14

KenS

Baird and Parkdale-High Park: thats still awfully one off and ad-hoc, the kind of localized thing that goes on all the time in multiple directions, for Pershilli to give it the fluffed up label of 'silent high level cooperation'.

Thu, 2010-06-03 09:57

#15

remind

So he thinks because Baird is taking shots at Kennedy, that the NDP and Conservatives have a plot to foil Liberal MP's?

Good grief.....

Thu, 2010-06-03 10:46

#16

Boom Boom

I roll my eyes every time Scott Reid shows up on TV saying the Liberals are the most successful brand in political history, and they can be again, and that a coalition is not on the table. He and Iggy are the reason the electorate will look elsewhere to park their votes.

Thu, 2010-06-03 10:48

#17

KenS

Here's my in the final analysis take on what it means that the Liberals are or are not disposed to actively entertaining coalition possibilities.

Short form first:

The Liberals being ill disposed to entertaining any kind of governing agreement is not ideal, but not in itself a huge impediment to succesfully putting one together after the election. But, being both ill disposed and being an inept organisation will make the odds of success much more daunting.

Suppose the Liberals remain ill disposed, and come out of the election having done reasonably well, and not having publicly bickered right up to the day the writ is dropped. Even having done well enough, Iggy and team's choice will still be stark: if they do not take the opportunity to form government, they are all out, period. It will not be December 2008 all over again: the option to wait for a majority will be obviously dead this time. It will be a miracle if the bickering stopped before the election call- in the event that happened, everyone would know it will be back twice as venomous if they don't go for government.

Bottom line: even in the most optimistic scenario of having done well in the campaign, the incentive structure is going to decisively point Iggy and company towards coalition. That much is almost a given.

But we know from the last attempt that haste in putting together a coalition leads to fatal errors. Fortunately, a lot was learned last time. So if time pressure is the only obstacle, then the parties should be able to move successfully. For one thing, once the will is there, both camps have the people who did this before, have learned from their mistakes, and are ready to go.

IF the only obstacle is time pressure....

But last time there was the additional pressure of leadership failures in the Liberal camp. And so far they have that in spades, plus even more dissaray and desperation, hard as that would be to imagine just a year ago. Even without Iggy among them, there will be a substantial bloc of Liberals wanting to torpedo the coalition.... plus, given the chaos they've been living through for severl years, at least 3 different camps of supporters of the coalition feeling that it must be done their way [and with the coincidental interests of the leadership hopefulls].

All those tensions will be brewing even if the Liberals have just come off a decent campaign, let alone one where they limped through. So if the campaign turned out as bad as feared, and/or they were bickering right up to election day, its not going to look good for the Liberals holding up their end of [sufficiently] clear and decisive.

Thu, 2010-06-03 11:04

#18

KenS

I think there are both Liberals who are like Scott Reid- "no way, never"- and then there are those who on the surface are saying "not interested, we just go ahead as we are," but are actually open and they just don't think its a good idea to say it in public. A shade different: those who think it a distraction to talk about now even internally, but are open when the time comes.

I would think Alf Apps is among the second group. Not that I know much about Donolo, but he has struck me as a realist, so I wouldnt have expected him to be in the no way camp. But, backs against the wall, who knows. [And who knows what else contributes.]

For what its worth, I think Kinsella would normally be among the last to go public with such an internally divided question as the coalition possibility talk... no matter which side he is on. I think the fact he did go public is a reflection of the desperation so many of them feel.

So while its a good thing he and RAe brought that out into the open, at the same time the need the felt to do it does not auger well. In the end, after the election the coalition ratinale is so compelling even in narrow LPC partisan terms, that the option will win by default. But if it, and the Liberals themselves, are so beat up getting to that point, its likely to be a phyrric victory.

Thu, 2010-06-03 12:24

#19

Stockholm

ottawaobserver wrote:

I think he's talking about Parkdale--High Park on that one. Baird keeps mentioning in the House that Gerard Kennedy never asks him questions about infrastructure, and that he's met with Peggy Nash more often than Kennedy on issues about that riding.

If the Tories really wanted to help the NDP win PHP - they would have to find a very high profile candidate with a lot of appeal to rightwing Poles and Ukrainians and have that person raise the Tory vote from 10% to 20% and have it all come from Kennedy. That's about the only thing they could really do.

Thu, 2010-06-03 12:36

#20

KenS

And by the way, just to be clear:

I would prefer the Liberals not choose the path of self destruction. But if they do, and Harper gets to keep going with a minority government as a result.... well things have changed already, and his days will be numbered too.

Harper with a limp cannot continue to govern as if he has a majority. The gig will be up after the installation of the new Liberal leader, and that will materially effect what they can do in the year plus despite the fact they know they will not lose a confidence vote until after the Lib leadership race. Harper's capacity to bully absolutely depends on a long time frame- being sure of winning the next vote isnt good enough.

Thu, 2010-06-03 14:55

#21

Sean in Ottawa

As I said before there will be a campaign against a coalition after the next election. It will be driven by Cons wanting to hold power and it will have a lot of resources.

If the Liberals go in to the next campaign saying they are open to a coalition and can point to that after when the topic comes up that campaign by the Cons will fail. If the Liberals have promised up and down not to have a coalition (as some seem to want to do as they think they may get more seats that way) then the campaign against a coalition will succeed.

What will happen is there will be huge demonstrationjs by the Cons if they can say the Liberals are doing this after saying they would not and the momentum will bring to tehir side non Conservatives and the coalition will be doomed.

The NDP should go in to the campaign saying they want to remove Harper-- call out the Liberals on this demanding they say if they will keep Harper in power. If they will then we should say a vote for the Liberals is a vote to keep Harper and try to remove as many Liebrals as we can. If the Liebrals respond by saying they woudl support a coalition if it looked feasable then we have the stage set for Harper to be removed. Either way it is a strong positive message for the NDP.

We cannot let the Liberals go through the next campaign saying they are an alternative to Harper if they do not commit to being part of his removal after the campaign. We can say that they are completely unrealistic and arrogant to think they can on their own get a majority in this 5-party context. They should not stand if they are not prepared to work with others to govern. This must be very, very aggressive. The message also fits with our central cam,paign which is that Harper and his extreme politics must be removed.

Thu, 2010-06-03 15:12

#22

ocsi

In Bratain today, Harper is already saying that losers don't get to form coalitions. What he conviently forgets is that no party should form government if they don't represent at least 50% of the voters.

Thu, 2010-06-03 15:36

#23

Stockholm

...Harper's comment begs the question - if he's a "winner" why hasn't he tried to form a coalition with anyone?

Incidentally, last week there was an election in the Czech Republic, the "winner" (according to Harper) was the Social Democratic Party which was the single largest party. However, a rightwing coalition of the second, third and fifth largest parties is taking power.

Is harper going to refuse to recognize the government of the Czech Rep. and recall the Canadian ambassador??

Thu, 2010-06-03 15:51

#24

ocsi

Stockholm wrote:

...Harper's comment begs the question - if he's a "winner" why hasn't he tried to form a coalition with anyone?

He doesn't have to so long as the Liberals play handmaiden to the Cons.

Thu, 2010-06-03 15:55

#25

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm-- Please can you take a few minutes and write your question in the form of a letter to the editor and send that to some newspapers.

Do you have Twitter? If you do please tweet that-- it is an excellent point and a question that we need to get out there-- exactly as you framed it.

If you do have twitter can you send me a message so I can follow you and retweet it?

Thu, 2010-06-03 18:03

#26

Stockholm

I have not gotten into "twittering", I'm afraid...but feel free to plagiarize me!!

Another juicy example. This weekend Harper was being host to his good friend Benjamin Netanyahu. I wonder why Harper would appear in public with an illegitimate fraud of a PM of Israel?? After all in the last Israeli election, the Kadima party was the single largest party and Netanyahu's Likud came in second - but then Bibi formed a coalition with rabidly rightwing and openly racist parties. I thought only "winners" were allowed to form coalitions!

Thu, 2010-06-03 18:20

#27

kropotkin1951

Harper doesn't need a coalition because he already has a parliamentary majority thanks to the Liberals.

Thu, 2010-06-03 18:31

#28

Stockholm

Well then the question needs to go over to the Liberals - why don't they demand cabinet seats in Harper's government and demand that Iggy be Deputy PM?? Right now the Liberals have the worst of both worlds - they are propping up the Tories and getting NOTHING in return - why doesn't Iggy call up his opposite number Nick Clegg in the UK and ask for advice on how to get some good jobs out of propping up rightwing conservative governments?

Thu, 2010-06-03 18:36

#29

kropotkin1951

Because they are the government in waiting. LMAO

Thu, 2010-06-03 18:38

#30

Stockholm

Here's an even better example of the "winner" according to Harper being gypped out of power. This time in Australia - where Harper ultimate political idol John Howard reigned for many years. This is a good example since Australia is often compared to Canada and has a first past the post system albeit with preferential ballots.

In the 1999 Australian election, the Labor party was the largest party with 67 seats, followed by Howard's Liberals with 64 seats and the rurally based National party with 16 seats. Result - the second place Liberals and the third place nationals formed a coalition and prevented the first place ALP from taking power.

So put that in your pipe Mr. Harper and SMOKE IT!!

Thu, 2010-06-03 19:36

#31

ottawaobserver

Sean, I would like to follow you on Twitter. Can you message me your Twitter handle?

Thu, 2010-06-03 20:04

#32

Tommy_Paine

shhhUUUUSHHHHHHH.

Thu, 2010-06-03 20:28

#33

Fidel

Count Iggy for Deputy PM! He'd make an excellent YES-man based on his performance record thus far.

Thu, 2010-06-03 21:03

#34

Policywonk

Stockholm wrote:

Here's an even better example of the "winner" according to Harper being gypped out of power. This time in Australia - where Harper ultimate political idol John Howard reigned for many years. This is a good example since Australia is often compared to Canada and has a first past the post system albeit with preferential ballots.

In the 1999 Australian election, the Labor party was the largest party with 67 seats, followed by Howard's Liberals with 64 seats and the rurally based National party with 16 seats. Result - the second place Liberals and the third place nationals formed a coalition and prevented the first place ALP from taking power.

So put that in your pipe Mr. Harper and SMOKE IT!!

It was the 1998 election. In addition to having fewer seats than Labour, Howard's Liberals lost 11 seats and the National Party lost 3 seats, while Labour picked up 18 but were short of a majority by 8 seats. Since there was already a Liberal/National coalition government after the 1996 election, this could be seen as a reduced majority for the centre-right coalition, which has formed government when the ALP was out of power since the coalition was formed in 1922.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_1998

Thu, 2010-06-03 21:46

#35

bekayne

Stockholm wrote:

...Harper's comment begs the question - if he's a "winner" why hasn't he tried to form a coalition with anyone?

He did-when he was in opposition. After losing the previous election.

Fri, 2010-06-04 01:03

#36

Sean in Ottawa

Stockholm. I did tweet it in two parts one for the point and second to say where I heard it. You only have a few characters.

My first tweet: "Harper: only winners should form coalitions. Czech Rep right wing losing parties form coalition. Will Harper refuse to recognize this gov?"

My second tweet: "My last tweet was a point I heard on rabble.ca from "Stockholm" but thought it was worth sharing as he is not on twitter."

So now over to you Stockholm-- please write the letters to the editor-- very important point on crucial discussion here.

Fri, 2010-06-04 01:29

#37

Sean in Ottawa

ottawaobserver wrote:

Sean, I would like to follow you on Twitter. Can you message me your Twitter handle?

I just did-- would like to follow you too.

Also if there are others here on Twitter that I can follow, I'd like to know.

Fri, 2010-06-04 04:12

#38

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

Well then the question needs to go over to the Liberals - why don't they demand cabinet seats in Harper's government and demand that Iggy be Deputy PM?? Right now the Liberals have the worst of both worlds - they are propping up the Tories and getting NOTHING in return - why doesn't Iggy call up his opposite number Nick Clegg in the UK and ask for advice on how to get some good jobs out of propping up rightwing conservative governments?

Ignatieff should be able to easily call Clegg considering that Clegg and Ignatieff are cousins. There seem to be many parallels between the two Liberal leaders who are descendants of Russian aristocracy and who frequently support Conservative governments.

Clegg would probably tell Ignatieff this: "after the next election and before the throne speech, if no party has a majority, negotiate like hell with the other parties to get as best a deal as possible for your party".

After the last election it didn't seem significant when the Conservatives passed their throne speech. A few weeks after the throne speech it turned out that allowing the Conservatives to pass the throne speech greatly weakened the possibility of establishing a coalition via a non-confidence vote.

So, learning from this experience, in the future, when no party gets a majority, the period after the election and before the throne speech will be "grand negotiating periods." During this period the parties will bargain hard to determine which party(s) govern and under what conditions they govern. It would be in the interest of all the parties to prepare their negotiating positions well ahead of time.

One of the few pluses of having had Conservative minority governments may be that in the future the party that comes in first place without a majority will no longer be given a free pass into government. In the future the party or parties that form government, when no party wins a majority, will have to make concessions in order to maintain the confidence of the house.

Fri, 2010-06-04 09:25

#39

Boom Boom

Harper is simply doing his best by spreading misinformation to prevent a legal coalition of the Opposition parties from happening - it's in his vested interests to do so.

Fri, 2010-06-04 09:38

#40

Sean in Ottawa

And it is in our vested interest to get the word out that he is hypocritical.

When he says losers should not form coalitions he means left and centre parties which he thinks are "losers"

But if a Conservative party could make a coalition he would be all for it.

The real point is he can safely make this comment because there is no possible coalition for Harper.

The Liberals can form a coalition with minimal risk with the NDP (certainly that is not completely without risk) but absolutely cannot with the Cons as they would be wiped out in the next election. They have to form the illusion that they are in opposition to the Cons (whether they actually are or not is another matter discussed here at length often).

In any case, all attacks on the Liberals aside (as I can do that all day), we need to get the message out that Harper feels he has no coalition partners and therefore is undermining our entire parliamentary system accordingly.

Fri, 2010-06-04 10:47

#41

ottawaobserver

You mean: "losers are the ones with no dance partners". Like that? That's less than 140 characters.

Fri, 2010-06-04 12:47

#42

outwest

"The real point is he [Harper] can safely make this comment because there is no possible coalition for Harper."

I think you mean to say that he can safely make this comment because he already made his coalition with the Reform and the PC parties a long time ago, in order to gain power.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:01

#43

Boom Boom

At every opportunity in Question Period, MP Pierre Poliviere refers to "the Opposition coalition". Since the Cons already believe the Opposition is a coalition, why not go all the way and formally declare one, and defeat these Conservative rightwing fanatics?

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:23

#44

ottawaobserver

Well, at least one Liberal blogger (albeit he was doing so tongue-in-cheek) has finally understood the dynamics going on here.

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:37

#45

No Yards

Excuse me, I seem to be having a harder and harder time figuring out what difference there is between the CPC, Libs, and NDP ... could someone explain which of those parties, if any, have a principle?

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:44

#46

KenS

Could you explain to me why you bother with threads where the topic is electoral politics?

At the very least you think all of the parties are hopeless.

So why do you bother asking?

Fri, 2010-06-04 13:46

#47

remind

ottawaobserver wrote:

You mean: "losers are the ones with no dance partners". Like that? That's less than 140 characters.

That is wonderfully witty.... :D and short enough...

Fri, 2010-06-04 15:18

#48

Sean in Ottawa

outwest wrote:

"The real point is he [Harper] can safely make this comment because there is no possible coalition for Harper."

I think you mean to say that he can safely make this comment because he already made his coalition with the Reform and the PC parties a long time ago, in order to gain power.

I never thought of that as a coalition -- hostile takeover maybe. They ate the PCs whole.

But it is not called a coalition it was a merger in the same sense that you can call someone and their previous night's dinner merged.

Fri, 2010-06-04 16:00

#49

NDPP

Hebert: Why Michael Ignatieff should Consider a Coalition

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/818794--hebert-why-michael-ig...

"Former prime minister Jean Chretien feels a Liberal-NDP Coalition is a concept worth exploring. 'If it's doable let's do it', he told CBC television last week. Former NDP Premier Roy Romanow agrees.."

Dan Arnold: Liberal Tory merger is quickest route to power:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/04/dan-arnold-liberal-tory-m...

"after listening to the arguments of many Liberals over the past week, I have come to a new conclusion. I now support a merger. A merger between the Liberals and the Conservative parties.."

rocks,hardplaces and strange and stranger bedfellows

Fri, 2010-06-04 16:52

#50

ottawaobserver

Four blogposts this afternoon on point:

For the Liberals, Scott Reid and Rob Silver.

Responding for the media, Chantal Hébert (in l'Actualité, a different post than her Star column this morning), and for the NDP, The Jurist at Accidental Deliberations.

Enjoying it all from the sidelines (and spinning like crazy after a six-month hiatus), Conservative blogger Steve Janke.

Fri, 2010-06-04 17:18

#51

ottawaobserver

Coalition poll on the CBC website now:

"If the next election results in another minority, would you support a Liberal/NDP coalition government?"

Pages

Topic locked