Coalition; to be or not to be?

I don't know about you Ottawaobserver but if you take credit for the good you also have to take credit for the bad and although Martie was not Prime Minister at the time he was the Finance Minister and there is no question that Smartie Martie held all the pursue strings as he had no problem keeping the public from tax dollars while indulging party members.

mybabble wrote:

I don't know about you Ottawaobserver but if you take credit for the good you also have to take credit for the bad and although Martie was not Prime Minister at the time he was the Finance Minister and there is no question that Smartie Martie held all the pursue strings as he had no problem keeping the public from tax dollars while indulging party members.

I know what you're saying, but just to be technical for a second: the Finance Minister sets the budgetary policy of the government, subject to the approval of cabinet, but the President of the Treasury Board holds the pursestrings within that budget.

Many cabinet ministers did not agree with the budgetary policy and went behind Martin's back to Chretien.  Chretien backed up his Finance Minister (something we know from later experience that Martin would not have done for his own Finance Minister, as he changed his mind constantly depending on the last person he spoke with).

A lot of people around here say that it's pretty easy to be Finance Minister ... you spend all year getting ready to give one big speech.  But you need a Prime Minister with a backbone, and you need a good Treasury Board President to implement it effectively.

This would be true regardless of the party in power.

I've just watched The National, and brother, someone is pushing an agenda.

Just watched that myself Boom Boom.  I don't buy that report (they are suggesting there are 'secret meetings' around a merger).   I can believe with little trouble there are talks setting the stage for an after election coalition.  But a merger - I don't believe anyone in the NDP is seriously talking about that.

Think of it this way.  For those in the NDP only concerned about getting elected federally, they would have left for the Liberals long ago except for in a tiny handful of ridings.  Having watched a couple of generation of NDP candidates tilt against the windmill, often clearly being the most competent candidate, I simply do not believe it.

I wish I'd watched it at 9 PM eastern now.  Will brace myself for the spin.

Yeah, I thought it might be Kinsella behind this - he obviously has an agenda - but I wasn't 100% sure.

Boom Boom wrote:

Yeah, I thought it might be Kinsella behind this - he obviously has an agenda - but I wasn't 100% sure.

But to what end?

All I can think of is that he is angling to get rid of Ignatieff before the next election.

Just watched the more 'in depth' portion on this story.  I call double bs.  Kinsella never actually says New Democrats are involved in discussions.  Nor is there any discussion about how NDP members might react.  This is all about the Liberals and Liberal infighting.  I have not belonged to a party since I left the Greens, but if the Liberals are this desperate I am taking an NDP membership out tomorrow and making a donation.  Time to bury these tools.

This is a giant mind-f*ck jerk-off by Warren Kinsella, who wants to prove to Ignatieff's people (who canned him from the warroom) that he can still drive the news agenda, and drive it in a way to mess with them.

There was NOT ONE named NDP source in that story.  Ed Broadbent has confirmed before that he and Chretien, both being on a board of something or other, exchanged views on what happened in the UK, from where Ed had just returned, but that neither had any mandate to negotiate for their parties.

The CBC in Toronto is so full of gullible Liberals that only they would buy this.  Paul Wells is calling BS on this on Twitter.  I'm inclined to believe him.

Kinsella's been caught bluffing.  These spin doctors think they can bend reality.

Grassroots NDP'ers and grassroots Liberals are not about to suddenly accept the destruction of their respective parties.

And in any case, there's not even enough time for a merger. It would take a year to merge the two parties. In the meantime, Harper would call an election, leaving the NDP and Liberals in no-mans land.

Kinsella's exposed himself. I wonder what kind of repercussions he's going to face?

I think Kinsella is trying to stir the pot by making up nonsense and either make himself relevant or (in his dreams) create some sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy! What I find incredible is that the CBC would practice such shoddy journalism by treating this like a serious story!

The only way I could EVER see the Liberals and NDP merging (and it would be very unlikely at that) would if the Harper won two consecutive MAJORITY governments and appeared invincible and there was a four year period before the next election during which time all the extraordinarily complex mechanics of a merger would have to happen.

But it won't happen. Seriously, if Kinsella and company hate Ignatieff so much and want to desparately to find a way to beat Harper - my advice is that they round a bunch of disgruntles Liberals and all quit the Liberal Party and join the NDP and swear allegiance to Jack Layton - the only man who can defeat Harper!

Jeff, think ahead a few moves on the chess board.  That's what Warren wants people to do.  If they deny it, that keeps the story going, because *of course* they're going to deny it, right (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).

Ignore it, or make a good joke, is what I predict Layton will do the next time he's scrummed.  To this point, his scrums have been pretty sceptical, although he'll always say that we always try to work with all parties to make parliament work.

Harper must be rubbing his hands with glee at all this coalition bullshit.

Ignatieff holds all the risks in coalition

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/820657--hebert-ignatieff-hold...

If this story is vastly overblown, the media should avoid using Kinsella as a credible source.

Political science predicts this kind of turmoil when there are too many strong parties under FPTP.

It predicts that we'll have ongoing turmoil until there are fewer strong parties or until we change electoral systems.

Political science predicts that under FPTP there will always be pressure toward a 2 Party dominant system. We're living under that pressure right now.

Political science even has a"law" for this situation.

Quote:

Duverger's law

In political science, Duverger's law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system.

If people hate the idea of a merger they should be against FPTP and support electoral reform. Otherwise they should prepare for a long drawn out battle over mergers.

Erik Redburn wrote:

I too would actively support a federal coalition this time ---as long as the NDP is smart enough to demand explicit terms from the Liberals, on public record, and is in fact only a temporary coalition, not a hostile takeover attempt.   An even exchange of seventy-five seats apiece would be a good place to start (along with a public committment on some form of PR -yes, it might even benefit the Liberals in Quebec and out West) but something less should be adequate.   Harper has to go.  ASAP.

What Kinsella and others seem to be driving at is for the NDP and Liberals to reach an agreement not to compete in swing ridings that might go Conservative in the next election.

If that was a one-time event and PR was established after the next election, it might be a good idea, but it would be very risky as it would alienate a lot of NDP and Liberals supporters. A lot of disgruntled Liberal supporters could just switch over to the Conservatives and hand Harper a majority.

As it is, the Liberals and NDP have a good chance at forming a coalition after the next election without selling out their supporters. And with that kind of coalition government they could implement electoral reform.

That was heinous journalism.  The CBC online article does not have a single NDP source, yay, nay, or no comment.  Pick up the phone you losers. 

I could have swallowed a coalition story presented in such a manner, but not a merger flier on the words of a single Liberal blowhard who just presumes the NDP will shrug, dump, and hump the big red machine under Count Iggy. 

Always risks in politics.  Leaving Harper in has risks too, many of which are already written in history and law.   Sorry if I sound partisan there.

I would only go so far as suggesting "cooperation" in specific swing ridings, myself, where one or the other regularly leads but the second takes enough to make a difference.  Most others should be left for open competition.  And only, again, if the Liberals commit themseolves to something tangeable in return. 

IMO, it would have to be negotiated in the public eye, over time, gaining both needed media attention.  Even the predictable negative press would be better than the present void, if supporters work themselves into the openings and speak up.  A monopoly on venues isn't quite the same as a monopoly on public opinion --not yet.

I still remember when Clark got in a second time and the local media went apeshit about how terrible it was that a government could gain a sitting majority with only 38%.  (obligatory note: Chretien's minority/majorities didn't seem to cause such concern, nor have Campbells since)  Now Harper retains his with barely over thirty and nary a squeak is heard.   Iggy should have called his bluff when they were officially neck on neck, but the past is passed.  The mainstream bugaboo about "causing another election" is overblown, media generated and easily dealt with and forgotten if the Opposition uses their heads for once. 

The best thing that could come out of a federal liberal-NDP merger would be the founding of a new left-wing party.

Caissa, I think you're absolutely right.  A new left-wing party would be the most positive outcome of a Liberal takeover of the NDP.  (Let's not kid ourselves into thinking of it as a merger.  The Reform/Alliance did not 'merge' with the PCs; it absorbed what was left of the PCs.)

I don't know if there would be enough disaffected NDPers and fellow travelers to join the Greens and make them a more progressive party, or if we'd simply start from scratch.  Regardless of which road we were to take, anything would be better than to let the electoral system devolve into an American-style duopoly.  You think elections are virtually meaningless now - you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Anyway, I think we've a long way to go before Bob Ramanow becomes Prime Minister.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

The final purpose and result is to establish political legitimacy to a deal after the election (legal legitimacy exists already).

All kinds of outlandish strategies will be discussed -- this is just to make sure the story stays out there. A few Liberals may have other ideas and they will be tolerated because they are contributing to this end.

I already sort of said this. But I don't think in most cases it will be people floating the bizzaree strategies just to get people talking.

Its good for people to keep in mind not to worry about the bizarre strategies being floated, and that it does serve the useful goal of neutralizing "coalitions are bad" narratives.

The current example: I already said I cant figure exactly what Kinsella is up to, but hes not just doing this for the greater good of paving the way for NDP and Liberal cooperation after the election. [Nor are most Libs going to tolerate him doing this. IF they are silent, thats not to be mistaken for tacit approval.]

For one thing, I think its only a matter of time before one of these weird ideas gets pushed by enough people to make it a distraction.

First out of the gate, Laura Payton for Sun Media (boy, they must be living with some trepidation this morning about their new boss in that bureau, Kory Teneyke, eh).

Liberals and NDP deny coalition talks

No doubt Kinsella leaked the info on purpose as either a trial balloon to reduce the sting of the proposal when it's made official or to get Canadians thinking about it or both.

Electorally, a coalition - formal or informal - only works to a certain point. In ridings where one party or the other traditionally dominates it allows the other party to withdraw their candidate and spend resources elsewhere (assuming full cooperation).

However, in competitive ridings there is a danger of vote splitting. In the 2008 election, there were approximately 31 ridings where vote splitting between the Liberals and the NDP allowed the Conservative candidate to eek out a win.

It's the NDP that would suffer most if it fully rationalized its election strategy in cooperation with the Liberals outside of full merger. In almost every instance, second place Liberal candidates garnered more votes than the NDP candidate in key ridings and as a result, the two parties would be better off if the NDP didn't run a candidate at all.

In short, a formal merger is in the NDP's best interest while a coalition works best for the Liberals.

Granted, a Liberal Democratic party would lose support at either end of the political spectrum but it's unlikely to make a significant difference. IFor example, in many of the 31 key ridings in 2008,  the NDP could have lost up to 25% of its support to the Green Party and still the combined Liberal/NDP total would've been greater than actual winners.

Finally, a Liberal-Democrat option may be considerably more palatable to Quebec voters who've abandoned the mainstream parties in favour of the provincially focused Bloc Quebecois. How much so is anyone's guess but the coalition would be unlikely to unseat the Bloc enough to form a majority.

A new party would also allow for a new leadership race and policy convention, something both parties are in dire need of.

In short, a minority Liberal-Democrat party would be a welcome change.

Antispin: I think a lot of words are being tossed around that mean different things to different people. Most often there are two words, coalition and merger. However there are four possible arrangements and your last post is contributing to the confusion (although not through your fault since the problem existed before).

Arrangements:

1) Merger-- the parties become one. I hate this as I do not support either the idea that we need such a broad entity to form governments or that it would be effective as other parties would come up. Further I want what an NDP can bring (when it is serving its purpose).I also believe the result would be the Liberals eating the NDP whole not a merger of equality.

2) Electoral non-competition-- the parties remain separate but do not compete in key ridings. I can't get into many details because this is loaded with inconsistencies, except to say people are talking about this as if it is some kind of compromise. A two-headed constipated donkey is what it is. It would be horribly damaging to both parties to try to go down this road. It is an affront to democracy and the members of both parties. It looks like less than a merger but it really isn't in the long run. It is more like the death throes of independence for both parties. In case it is not clear I hate this stupid idea. I do object to it being called a coalition because that is not what it is and a coalition happens to be the arrangement I want to see.

3) A coalition is a post election arrangement between two separate parties who together form a governing arrangement that lasts for a specific term or until one party withdraws. There is no electoral arrangement the parties compete directly as always. This is like the British coalition. The parties retain their own positions on everything and must negotiate constantly to deal with anything that is not included in the governing accord. This allows the voters the full spread of options, allows the parties to make temporary arrangements without giving up what they are and allows for a governing consensus as needed. This is the only arrangement I have ever supported federally.

4) A governing accord is where one party does not enter in to government as it would in a coalition with another but agrees to tolerate them in government without removal in exchange for specific concessions for a given term. This is what Rae signed with Peterson in Ontario. They did not actually have a coalition. This is good for when one party is much bigger than another. When they are more evenly matched it is less desirable partly because the government has too few members and is less representative and partly because the smaller party has a reason to want to be in government and a lot more to offer. I will also make the point when people say we have now an effective coalition they are wrong. What we have had is in effect a governing accord between the Liberals and Cons except the Liberals get nothing in the deal other than not having an election.

History is not always a good predictor. In the case of Peterson we all know that he blew it and Rae eventually government. We need to remember that in between there was a Liberal majority. I think a governing arrangement is normally very negative to the smaller party.

In any case as I have defined them I would like a free and competitive election where the NDP tries to take as many seats as they can from all parties including the ineffective gutless Liberals. Then once it is over, the parties should all look at each other and consider what they want and have to offer and come up with the best possible coalition-- perhaps it will be Liberal-Conservative with NDP opposition or NDP-Liberal with Conservative opposition. Everybody should want in and negotiate accordingly.

I realize this is controversial but I also support the idea of participation form the BQ. And by this I mean in government. Certainly some ground rules need to be agreed to but that is true of all arrangements. It is simply not healthy to exclude such a large number of MPs from potential governance. That in itself is anti-democratic. The BQ can be offered a role for a given time conditional on a temporary loyalty to a current government and agree that they will put off their national project for that term and instead try to create the best government for their constituents in the meantime. If they cannot do this then that would exclude them but the invitation ought to be on the table.

Calling it a "spreadshheet strategy" only covers the aspects of it that are adding up numbers of votes that don't add up in practice.

A coalition means a government formed after an election. Occasionaly- but not generally [and I can only think of one case]- there are arrangements between parties to trade where they will not run candidates. So when you say 'coalition' you are not using the term in the general usage way, and not the way it is used around here.

And where you get the idea a merger is in the NDP's best interest- lord only knows. Not from people in the NDP.

The dissapearance of the NDP would be a welcome change to the Liberal Party. And it looks like floating non-starter ideas of a merger is for some Liberals the replacement after giving up on trying to marginalize the NDP.

"Anti-spin" doesnt seem to be appropriate choice for a handle.

I think it is highly amusing that since the AntiSpin persona was created yesterday, it has posted nothing but Liberal spin.