Coalition; to be or not to be?

Horse hockey. Saying the other guy would do better folding their tent completely is utter nonsense, made all the more silly by saying it would only be temporary.

--------------

At no point did I write that the NDP should "fold their tent".....instead, and quite clearly, I wrote that the NDP would be better served by a merger than a coalition only insofar as optimizing where the two parties run candidates.

Yeesh.

AntiSpin wrote:

Horse hockey. Saying the other guy would do better folding their tent completely is utter nonsense, made all the more silly by saying it would only be temporary.

--------------

 

At no point did I write that the NDP should "fold their tent".....instead, and quite clearly, I wrote that the NDP would be better served by a merger than a coalition only insofar as optimizing where the two parties run candidates.

 

Yeesh.

 

That wasn't clear to me at all, you were making some very broad statements.  And again, I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.   To make any sense politically, any such idea would have to be sold as not what's best for party B and C politically but to protect the public interest of the majority.    

If small c Tories ever regain control of the big C party then such arrangements wouldn't even need to be spoken of out loud.

Erik - I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.

------

I agree with this 100%.

In fact, given Canada's constitutional and political conventions, it can't be done any other way. Those, like Ignatieff, who believe a coalition of convenience after the fact will work are dreaming.

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik - I think that any such pre-election arrangement should only apply to the minimum number of seats required (with a small margin perhaps) to defeat our increasingly dictatorial far right, to be negotiated in public view to keep all parties honest.

------ I agree with this 100%. In fact, given Canada's constitutional and political conventions, it can't be done any other way. Those, like Ignatieff, who believe a coalition of convenience after the fact will work are dreaming.

You don't think so?  How come?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I'm not worried about this chatter. And Harper likely is at least if he is smart.

While the NDP and the Liberals will never do a pre-election deal both parties will likely talk about it and yes there is an agenda here.

That agenda is to get this chatter done extensively during the summer silly season and then after the next election when Harper tries to say a coalition is not legitimate the answer will be that it certainly is and that Canadians heard all kinds of talk before the election. Likely Harper can see through this but he can't stop it.

Very good, perfectly fair political positioning just to get the possibility out into the public domain again.   So play the cards as dealt just to show the NDP is willing to compromise in everyones best interests, but is unwilling to make sudden commitments to a party that's already sabotaged two more meaningful coalitions, has a recent history of supporting similar economic policies as Harper, and has yet to come to the table with any serious offers from any duly elected representatives.  As I said, call their bluff and see what they're holding. 

Post-election coalitions are generally wiser anyhow, as it gives either leader a clearer mandate for what they've proposed.  If Harper finishes ahead again then the biggest challenge would be to remind voters that grand colaitions are perfectly constitutional and democratic, and have some history, with leading (not winning) minority only having the right to make the first phone calls to others.    The terms have to be agreed on between any leaders involved.  If they can't negotiate that much then others are free to try.  That should be understood as foundational to parliamentary democracies, even if in places like Canada majority rule has been the norm.

Is anyone out there sick and tired of the globe and mail and its subsidiary the CBC talking about mergers and coalitions. Listening to this weeks the House on CBC we heard multiple liberal talking heads talk, discuss and deny mergers and pre-election coalitions all the while mentioning only ONE un-named source for the NDP. 

The globe is worse giving all this press space to liberals, even editorial space to Scott Reid so that they can pump up the liberal brand and refuse to be tainted by "the socialists."

I swear I've read the Alf Apps quote "we wont even talk merger until the NDP rejects socialism" a dozen times. 

To ask the NDP to reject socialism is to ask the Liberals to reject spinelessness.

Even with my ranting, I still believe cooperation is possible, but we need to frame the discussion around issues, values, and goals for the nation instead of the petty opportunism. The Libs just sound as power hungry and infused with their sense of entitlement as always and the press makes it seem that the NDP is just as petty.

Where have the good journalists gone? 

Lou Arab wrote:

There are lots of solid, rational arguments against a merger between the Liberals and NDP.

For now though, I'm against it for reasons somewhat less rational: I'd rather not be a part of the same party as Warren Kinsella.

 

Seriously people, 58 posts and counting on something coming from Warren Kinsella?  Is nobody aware of this guy's credibility level?

The less time wasted on this non-story the better.

I'm sorry, but since no one party has been able to offer credible opposition to a far right minority that's been sitting for years now, this kind of idea is bound to attract some attention. 

I don't know what the problem with talking about it is anyhow, when most NDPers here were equally determined to defend the previous coalition deal which fell through.  (largely from hostile media spin)  This may be pure mischief making as you suggest, but like I said, it should be dealt with on the public stage to get YOur counter-spin stamped on it, and convey a willingness to look beyond your own partisan interests -if the other guys are serious.  This present situation, with even Ignatieff gasping for air, could allow you to lay more conditions than the last failed attempt.  

There.  I think I've laid out a middle ground of sorts, between immediate rejection or acceptence.  If it's nothing but Kinsella's musing then it'll fade soon enough anyhow.

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

If the Liberals win a minority they certainly can make a lasting coaltion with the NDP. But if, after the next election, the allotement of seats is about the same as it is now why would Liberals bother? A coalition has to provide a voting advantage in the HoC so any post-election arrangement that gives the Liberals-NDP less seats than the Conservatives is a nonstarter in this scenario. And I thnk Canadians spoke loudly against any governing accord between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc (although I don't have a problem with it provide there's complete transparency and no backroom dealing (small chance I know)).

This is why I agree that forming a coalition pre-election and running based on that coalition - or call it whatever you want -  is the way to go. 

The role of the GG is highly constrained and while I am sympathetic of the idea of Parliament itself deciding which party has the confidence of the House, that's not how it works in reality. It would take a much humbler prime minister than we've ever had to lose a confidence vote in the House and then willingly step aside. Something to hope for perhaps.

--

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

If the Liberals win a minority they certainly can make a lasting coaltion with the NDP. But if, after the next election, the allotement of seats is about the same as it is now why would Liberals bother? A coalition has to provide a voting advantage in the HoC so any post-election arrangement that gives the Liberals-NDP less seats than the Conservatives is a nonstarter in this scenario. And I thnk Canadians spoke loudly against any governing accord between the Liberals, NDP and Bloc (although I don't have a problem with it provide there's complete transparency and no backroom dealing (small chance I know)).

This is why I agree that forming a coalition pre-election and running based on that coalition - or call it whatever you want -  is the way to go. 

The role of the GG is highly constrained and while I am sympathetic of the idea of Parliament itself deciding which party has the confidence of the House, that's not how it works in reality. It would take a much humbler prime minister than we've ever had to lose a confidence vote in the House and then willingly step aside. Something to hope for perhaps.

Parliament does determine whether the governing party has the confidence of the House. Whether or not it gets to choose between parties depends on timing (early or later in the parliament) and whether there is a viable alternative government. In the 1985 Ontario case essentially the provincial legislature decided and the Lt. Governor agreed. I think a coalition after the next election (assuming no one party has a majority) depends on whether the Liberals and the NDP have more seats than the Conservatives. If that happens, the Conservatives (if they chose to face the House) would be defeated at their first test of confidence, and if Harper asked for dissolution he would be unlikely to fare any better in the ensuing election.

AntiSpin wrote:

Erik...King-Byng....the result of which is that a GG is not going to agree to something that goes against the interests of a sitting prime minister, assuming of course that the Conservatives win another minority government which isn't a sure thing. Political convention in Canada is that governments make coalitions, not the Opposition, which is why we tolerate minority governments.

Not quite.  A sitting government only has that position until the writ has fallen.  If their party fails to gain a clear majority in the following election then they are just another potential governing party looking for a partner to support them --first at bat but not the only option available.  If that weren't the case then any potential partner would be left with no leverage at any point in the negotiations, which is not the case historically or legally.  The guy with the most seats must include every seat in the House, not just the most out of X parties running.  The GG has to follow convention too, her/his personal preferences or ease is secondary on those rare occasions.  Lets not buy the corporate media line used in England starting out. 

You and the NDPers here can sort out which you think would be a better, more likely and/or desirable scenario otherwise.  I got to run again soon.

Erik Redburn wrote:

Not quite.  A sitting government only has that position until the writ has fallen.  If their party fails to gain a clear majority in the following election then they are just another potential governing party looking for a partner to support them --first at bat but not the only option available.  If that weren't the case then any potential partner would be left with no leverage at any point in the negotiations, which is not the case historically or legally.  The guy with the most seats must include every seat in the House, not just the most out of X parties running.  The GG has to follow convention too, her/his personal preferences or ease is secondary on those rare occasions.  Lets not buy the corporate media line used in England starting out.

Harper has tried his best to confuse people but the GG has to follow rules and conventions. If a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons within 5 months of an election, the Governor General has to give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to form a government.  When Harper was Leader of the Opposition he himself sent a letter to the GG reminding her that if Paul Martin's government lost the confidence of the House, he was in line to form a government with the support of the NDP and BQ.  For Harper to turn around and complain about a "coalition of losers" is sheer hypocrisy.

I think that even if the NDP and Liberals have less seats then the Conservatives, they could still form a coalition government after the next election. After the next election, the BQ could say that for them nothing has changed, that they will continue to vote against the Conservative government as they have since the last election.  The BQ could add that they would not vote against a government led by one of the other opposition parties. And they could say that they have no interest in being a part of a government but in the interest of stability, they will help prevent the government from falling until the next fixed election day.

The NDP and Liberals would then be able to vote against the government and have it replaced. The party that comes in 2nd place, either the NDP or Liberals, could then form a minority government by itself or lead a coalition government. Under such a scenerio the Liberals and NDP would decide the form the new government would take. After the election and before the Throne Speech the NDP and Liberals would iron out the terms and conditions of such a government.

Most likely they would agree on having a referendum on electoral reform or even enacting electoral reform if it was already mentioned in at least one of their electoral platforms.

And once fair voting was enacted, the word "merger" would no longer have to spoken of in polite company.

Quote:

Ignatieff, Layton scoff at media report of Liberal-NDP merger talks

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and NDP chief Jack Layton are scoffing at a media report suggesting their parties are discussing a merger.

Ignatieff said the idea is "ridiculous."

Layton called it "fiction."

The two leaders reacted Wednesday to a CBC report in which Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella said senior Grits were involved in "serious" negotiations to unite the centre-left under a new Liberal-Democratic party banner.

Notwithstanding the flat denials from the two highest authorities in both parties, affidavits were flying by late Wednesday as Liberals engaged in a "did too-did not" tiff over who, if anyone, has been talking about uniting the parties.

"No one has any authorization to even discuss this matter," Ignatieff said following a Liberal caucus meeting.

"It's ridiculous."

Emerging from his own party's caucus meeting, Layton was equally categoric.

"It's not a fusion, it's a fiction," he said.

"Sworn affidavit". Oh lordy.

This is so weird.

Will any Liberals EVER take Kinsella back to do anything?

So far, too weird to be farce.

Does Warren sing as well as play the guitar? That might do it.

Head banging metal tune. Yah.

Andrew Potter:

Quote:

I've been thinking of writing something on the whole Liberal-NDP coalition/merger stuff for a while, but I've been putting it off because life is short and there are, at any given moment, probably five hundred  more interesting things to write about, read about, talk about, or think about than about yet another Big Plan to save the Liberal Party of Canada from itself. But this whole "secret mergers" story, which appears to be somewhere between 98 and 100 percent bullshit, puts it into the top fifty.

He gave the article just one tag: Bozos

Ignatieff's hooped, and so are the Liberals.

Harper must be loving this farce.

Ignatieff tries to outlast merger rumours

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/09/john-ivison-ignatieff-tri...

"A sitting government is the government until another government is sworn in."

Well yes, but after an election it isn't really a "government" until it can govern.  My point was that the second and third party's can and have combined to form a coalition, if the number one finisher is too ideologicaly opposed to the rest of the House and can't or won't form a partnership others find acceptable.  To forget that would undermine one of the central advantages of minority situations, and give Harper more leverage than his own minority deserves

I see it's just a bunch of Kinsella bs after all, so I guess this too can safely be written off.  Long as more people become aware on the difference between a merger and coalition then it might not be a total waste of time. 

And the neo-cons are honest about Their intentions??  I know it would be a great day if more voters saw the many similarities between the Cons and Libs, but trying to argue that it makes no difference at All, while a hard right ideologue like Harper is in office, is not going to fly either.    

Broad reading is good for you. That includes the National Post, and more so John Ivison.

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

The Liberals don't pretend to be social democratic. Their ideology is liberal. They come by it honestly. They support social programs but they also support capitalism. They feel it is important to keep taxes low for the rich but they also believe in social programs like medicare and national day care.

The Conservatives also support keeping taxes low for the rich. But they are against social programs.

This is why the NDP cannot find common ground with the Conservatives while it can find some with the Liberals.

That's why people like Roy Romanow and Ed Broadbent can negotiate with Liberals and but not Conservatives.

In most part, politicians support their chosen ideology.

Liberal - liberal ideology
NDP - social democratic ideology
Conservative - neo-conservative idology
BQ - separatist/nationalist ideology
Green: environmenmtal ideology

I don't see false-flag operations.

Hey folks, I suppose it is OK to quote from the BS in the Globe though!

What freakin' idiots. What part of "No" do the Liberals not understand!

Despite denials, merger debate continues in restive Liberal ranks

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-denials-merger-deba...

If Kinsella still has a LPC membership after all this, it should be revoked. On the other hand, he's entertaining as hell, even if he a doofus.

Some folks would much rather be inundated with propaganda from the Liberal CBC and the Liberal Toronto Star, eh!

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Way too many people here and elsewhere are blinded by their hatred of the Conservatives.

The Liberals are far more of an adversary to progressives than the Conservatives, because the Liberals fly false colours.

 

Is that why we have to be inundated with so much Conservative propaganda and spin from right wing sources like the National Post?