Bill

So, with the "opposition" quavering in one corner of the room, Harper governs as though he had a majority, pushing through increasingly repressive legislation, daring anyone to stand up and say "NO!".

What's your answer to this, Bill?

Coalition

We already have a coalition of the two corporatist parties: The Liberal Party and the Conservative Reform Alliance Party which as far as I'm concerned is a bunch of Neo-Liberal CRAP!

con 33.9
lib 25.7
ndp 16.4
green 11.9
bloc 9.4
other 2.7

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/05/26/ekos-poll-.html

A better coalition may be the NDP, Bloc and Green.

left green bloc 37.7
con 33.9
lib 25.7
other 2.7

But, of course it would be way better if our votes actually counted. Our First Past The Post popularity contest is a failure. We need Mixed Member Proportional Representation.

Canada is a dictatorship now.

I heard a new item that said Ignatieff would be happy to lead a coalition if that is what the voters decided. At the time I thought maybe he was throwing an olive branch out to the non conservative voter, unlike the last time. First he has to give up the notion that he has the right to lead and let those he will expect to lead to make that decisions. They might set some conditions on his leadership. Saying he is willing to lead a coalition is a bit presumptuous.

Still an interesting concept an one worth exploring further if we are to get free of the chains under Harper. Maybe the G20 fiasco at a cost of will finish him off. I mean $50 million per guest it is an outrage.

Socialist, Seperaist and Enviromentalist. Wouldn't work

A socialist party with seperatists and environmentalists in a coalition? That really has to be a joke.

Iggy would not give up the right to lead. He is leader of the Opposition Party, not Layton, and why would Layton be bounced ahead of Iggy in terms of who leads this cesspool of idealogues?

Would be better for each of the three parties to just sell themselves better to the electorate and let them decide without any get one, get another free offer.

A better coalition may be

A better coalition may be the NDP, Bloc and Green.
============

The Greens are not left but centre right. They are basically a con party with an environment plan...*sigh*

BC Boy

You just love this FPTP farce, don't ya?

So tell us how a conservative and a liberal democrat manage to get together in Merry ol' England....

Besides, the Bloc is separatist in name only - and is prepared to play the partiess off against each other to get what it wants. Much the same as Harper plays the parties off against each other to get what he wants. Must be that Harper and Duceppe are twins under the skin.

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck - must be a duck, nicht wahr?

Cool hand Jack

I have to admit it, he's the Ottawa party leader I'd most like to have a beer with. (maybe Duceppe but thats only b/c he could show me some good places in Montreal. Its always better to be out with French people in Montreal. Opens doors...)
I find the federal NDP far more palatable than their Victoria cousins for some reason. The Jack effect?

Beer & Food

The Liberals have always struck me as the roast chicken party. All those banquets where if you're really lucky there'll be salmon instead. The Cons are obviously the party of steak. A coalition of the NDP, Bloc and Greens conjures up garlic flavoured cabbage rolls stuffed with granola. Nah.

Bill T

You asked why on earth the NDP and Libs would consider a coalition?

The answer is that some of them realize that the first-past-the-post voting system produces skewed results and will continue to do so.

You go on to say why we have different parties in the first place, and that's all true. But the voting system makes that a mute point when only a third of the electorate support the government that results.

Paradoxically, reducing the number of choices available to non-Conservative voters is the only way to defeat the Conservatives with the electoral system you champion.

Long-term the NDP and Libs can't remain together, we do have a large number of differences. But, a coalition whose main platform plank will be a fair electoral system should be supported by everyone to the left of Harper.

With a new electoral system in place we can quickly ditch the coalition and become a real democracy.

More to Bill T

"No, the unfortunate reality for coalition dreamers is that the sum of the political parts doesn't add up to the whole -- you can't simply take the federal Liberal vote and add it to NDP vote to handily defeat the Conservatives. "

It was a poll done by Angus Reid, not a scribe doing sums. One should assume that all of your doomsday scenarios were addressed by the poll. People told the pollster they would vote for the NDP-Lib coalition in spite of your arguments that that wouldn't happen.

Rather than erect a strawman why not deal with the actual poll result? If Jack Layton led a Lib-NDP coalition, Libs and NDP wouldn't join the Cons, nor would they sit at home (which they did do last time actually when no coalition was available).

Bill is not the only NDP strategist

to hate on the idea of a coalition. That little NDP strategist guy who appears on Power and Politics or Power Play was positively sneering at the Libs recently - the poobahs of the the NDP are circling their wagons cuz they cannot stand that they are not needed by the electorate - a positively royal liberal attitude - and they simply do not want anyone else supplanting them.

Electoral success - bah who cares if the country is going to hell, my status is more important than that - no coalition. Same with Bill as will Michael I.

A Coalition to defeat Harper? Then what?

So a coalition exists for the delight of those who want to defeat Harper. Then what? Th Liberals will be diluted in what it would like to accomplish as part of this coalition, as it would be encumbered by the lesser volume of NDP MPs. The NDP edges closer to power and influence and their objectives get diluted by being in coalition with the Liberals. Give and take, at the expense of something.

If there's a will to defeat Harper, would be better for the Liberals to be elected as government with the NDP as Opposition followed by the Tories.

This coalition nonsense isn't going to accomplish much except for those who have a direct say in how it works.

Coalition Required to Oust Harper

When you live in a time of the disintegration of democracy, you will accept alternatives that you might otherwise reject.

Harper and Campbell and the runaway elitist monopoly capitalism has been SO destructive to our society and environment, I say, bring on the coalition. Let it be the NDP, the Bloc and the Liberals (hold your nose). Sometimes, anything is better than the alternative. And this is it.

I love Mr. Tieleman's tenacity and courage and spirit, but that doesn't mean we must always agree.

Great discussion.

@Bill

As for the 'reasons' why the NDP might consider a coalition with the Liberals to defeat Harper - I can think of several.

Not least among which is history. For anyone who knows the 'history' of the British Labour Party and how it managed, over time, to come to power the idea of scorning any and all 'coalitions' is pretty short sighted..

I think a real coalition would mean that a lot of traditional 'Liberals' (among whom would be both Paul Martin and Michael Ingatieff) would find their way into the Conservative Party in a big hurry.

The idea that 'Liberals' in this country are progressive is a polite fiction. Nothing much to dilute there. They've always been about nothing but power (with the odd small exception) and not about actually 'doing' anything except hanging on to it.

Not that I expect a coalition to happen along the lines Dobbin has been promoting…we’re likely going to have to watch Pee Wee flay the electorate for a while yet. With artificial lakes and one billion dollar bills to ‘secure’ an economic conference it may not be all ‘that’ long though. The capacity of Conservatives to shoot themselves in the foot is (as Campbell proves in BC) not limitless.

Left wing rhetoric

"When you live in a time of the disintegration of democracy, you will accept alternatives that you might otherwise reject."

Disintegration of democracy? That's laughable. Ther hasn't been any abolition of the people's right to choose which party becomes government in the next election. Canada is not a one party state.

"Harper and Campbell and the runaway elitist monopoly capitalism has been SO destructive to our society and environment,"

Good heavans, this reads like something from a Young New Democrat newspaper. Capitalism. Think about it the next time you use your Ipod, Iphone or even the computer you're using right now in front of you.

Coalition isn't going to work.

Lack of courage

"the Liberal party's MPs have propped up the Harper government in over 40 parliamentary votes in the past few years" Yes, and the NDP has also supported the government when the Liberals would not. The opposition has always been able to defeat the government. They just lack the courage to do so. Oh, I agree that our electoral system is a travesty, but it's the one we have.

Disintegration of democracy

"Ther hasn't been any abolition of the people's right to choose which party becomes government in the next election."

Yes, there has. 2/3 of the population are treated as a minority. 2/3 of the population aren't represented by the government.

When the electoral system fails so utterly in its most basic function its only natural for people to find new ways to have their voices heard.

Well get more people to the polls

"Yes, there has. 2/3 of the population are treated as a minority. 2/3 of the population aren't represented by the government.

When the electoral system fails so utterly in its most basic function its only natural for people to find new ways to have their voices heard."

Get more people to the polls then. When the 1996 provincial election was done, the NDP actually got less than the Liberals when it came to the popular vote, but won the most seats and became government for a second time.

[COMMENT NOT CONDUCIVE TO CIVIL DEBATE REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]

BC Boy

"Get more people to the polls then."

If 100% of the population showed up how would you get a different result than what polling from every company shows over and over? You wouldn't.

"Whining isn't going to do anything."

And neither will voting within the current system.

And the idea of a coalition is not whining, its a way of working within the current electoral system.

So stop whining about the possibility of a coalition since the electoral system you support is why its necessary.

Harper's ace.

Harper's ace is the inability of the Liberals and the NDP to come together if the people decide that no one gets a clear majority. The conservatives govern for corp[orations, the liberals do the same but to appease their collective conscience they will throw a few crumbs to the people now and then. That is why they seem to have no problem propping up Harper even though he governs for corporate interests. Liberals have always lacked the guts to govern without sucking up to their corporate sponsors. The NDP governs for the people and worries less about the constant whining of business. They are also more nationalistic in the sense that they are not into globalization of economies.

Individually liberals and NDP are quite different but they do have things in common that after the next election they should have a strategy in place to work together. If they manage that we can let Harper sail away on his silly lake and we will be rid of him. Coalitions have worked in other jurisdictions and it is nonsense to think they can't work in Canada. That is a message promulgated by those who like Harper in control and has nothing to do with reality.

Either a coalition or change voting to a run-off ballot but it has to be in place before the next election.

bc "boy"

Quote: "Capitalism. Think about it the next time you use your Ipod, Iphone or even the computer you're using right now in front of you."

Ok, I've thought about it. But I must be a little thick because this 'capitalism' red-herring keeps confusing the fact that socio-politically futile technological innovation (at least so far) and expanded production/distribution capability in the meaningless gadgetry sector of the the economy don't appear to have much relation to an economic system grounded on increasingly concentrated wealth in the hands of the few as a result of expanded capability to exploit social labour power.... or... wait a minute... maybe there is a connection after all... hmmm...

Tieleman, love of archaic parliementary dogma!

Tieleman, you are a proven parliamentary system dogmatist. You opposed STV in BC, and now you oppose any attempt at the federal level to shake up said system. You represent dogma. Those who seek democratic alternatives and solutions to our archaic, unjust FPTP system represent creative pragmatism.

Here's one reason you should support a coalition: it represents the only shot your NDP party will ever get at tasting power in Ottawa; the NDP's only real shot at being able to demonstrate to voters they can do it at the highest level. But for ideological purity and maintenance of an ancient system, you'd prefer they linger in the margins of the HoC for time immemorial.

It's ironic that a staunch NDPer like Tieleman is opposing this strategy when it was his party that was founded on the very principle of cooperation and coalition building.

Obviously experienced former NDP power holders like Ed Broadbent and Roy Romanow know what they hell the stakes are. Tieleman does not.

The Liberal "Coalition"

In the past disparate groups have coalesced under the Liberal Party banner. A coalition at the voter level instead of the party level. Easy to see why this is the type of coalition Liberal party supporters would prefer.

However, voters no longer seem willing to trust that scenario. The Liberal Party seems to believe its just a matter of selecting the right leader, a "messiah", to bring the non-Conservative vote home and return them to power. But they'd have had a couple of kicks at the can and that isn't working either.

The Greens poll in high numbers and the media writes them off as disaffected NDPers. But are they? Add the current Green and NDP vote together and then tell me when the NDP ever got that much support in an election.

Certainly it appears a few percent of Green support may be made up of ex-NDP voters but a hard look at the numbers suggests its the Liberals that have been hurt by the rise of the Greens.

Considering that Stephen Dion was as "green" as many Greens and the Libs went nowhere its safe to say that its not leadership alone that will return the Libs to power.

The question that Bill T doesn't want to address is why did the poll say a formal Coalition led by Iggy would fail and one led by Layton would succeed? He did after all list a number of reasons why the results of that poll could never happen without addressing the fact that it did.

Is there a lot of disaffected Liberals that can't vote Liberal any longer because they see their party as too right-wing? Or is it simply that a Layton-led NDP would seriously cut into Bloc support in Quebec?

I'd like to know what the level of Green support would be if the NDP and Libs formed a coalition but I don't believe that was in the poll.

In my opinion the poll raises a lot more questions than it answers.

Wouldn't a more democratic

Wouldn't a more democratic and more permanent solution be abandoning First Past the Post and adopting Proportional Representation?

Maybe, just maybe, there are

Maybe, just maybe, there are a few politicians, or ex politicians around who will put the country and it's people first. The question must surely be, not "What's best for the Liberals or the NDP?", but "What's best for the country and it's people?" I don't think the Conservative party is ever the answer to that question.

Questions to be answers

- What exactly would this coalition comprise of in terms of policies acceptable to both the Liberals and the NDP?

- What would be excluded? How would such exclusions be dealt with? There is a difference in policy direction between the Liberals and the NDP.

- What if any policies would be deemed acceptable to the Greens for their support?

- Who would decide who becomes a Minister should this coalition become government? What criterion would be used for assesment for a candidate for a Ministerial post?

- Do the membership in both parties have a say in how this coalition is composed in terms of policy? If not, why not?

- Does this coalition market itself as two parties becoming on enjoined after the election or before?

- Is there one candidate for the coalition in each riding or do the two parties each place one candidate in a riding? is there competition between the two candidates or no?

- Who decides who becomes Prime Minister in such a coalition, and does this Prime Minister become some kind of leader to each of the coalition parties? If not where does the Deputy PM play a role?

Questions to be answered for the electorate.

The proportional representation is a non starter, as it won't happen for the next election.

BC Boy

"- What exactly would this coalition comprise of in terms of policies acceptable to both the Liberals and the NDP?"

Discussions would isolate areas of mutual agreement. Move forward on those.

"- What would be excluded? How would such exclusions be dealt with? There is a difference in policy direction between the Liberals and the NDP."

Areas of disagreement where a compromise could not be found would not be addressed.

"- What if any policies would be deemed acceptable to the Greens for their support?"

Again, that would depend on discussions with the Greens but I'm sure some issues could be found where agreement was possible.

"- Who would decide who becomes a Minister should this coalition become government? What criterion would be used for assesment for a candidate for a Ministerial post?"

The criteria would be the same as it is now. As for who decides, it would be the same as now except more than one party would be involved.

"- Do the membership in both parties have a say in how this coalition is composed in terms of policy? If not, why not?"

They would have the same say they have now.

"- Does this coalition market itself as two parties becoming on enjoined after the election or before?"

Before would be better as it would take away the possibility of vote-splitting and put way more seats up for grabs.

"- Is there one candidate for the coalition in each riding or do the two parties each place one candidate in a riding? is there competition between the two candidates or no?"

Parties could work this out but it would probably be based on who is more likely to win a given a riding.

"- Who decides who becomes Prime Minister in such a coalition, and does this Prime Minister become some kind of leader to each of the coalition parties? If not where does the Deputy PM play a role?"

Again, discussions already underway are addressing these issues.

"The proportional representation is a non starter, as it won't happen for the next election."

I imagine this would be one of the compromises Liberals would have to make to gain the support of smaller parties. Especially the Greens.

Pretty basic stuff

Have a look at the coalition proposal Dion and Layton brought to the table in December of 2008...pretty basic stuff - happens in civilized democracies all the time.

The parties continue to market themselves as they always have - and they settle who gets the cabinet posts by consensus. There are even a couple of consensus governments in Canada right now...you can check it out.

For the sake of the country Jack!

We're seeing it everywhere Jack and you must lead the way for Canada's and Canadians sakes. It's time to fold 'em, Jack. Iggy's not going to risk any coalition after the last disaster and the Liberal honchos would go down with the ship rather than admit they needed a crutch but a complete merger would work. Iggy could offer you something nice for that. Wind the party up Jack, you've had a good run, it's not going to get any better than 20%, you know that. You can probably get 50% billing, 'Liberal Democrats' sounds OK too.

r'man

A complete merger would fail because the 20% would simply start a new party. Only a coalition where the left-wing has a seat at the table has a chance.

Otherwise Steve will remain PM and the Liberals may eventually fall apart if there's no chance of power.

Its in the NDP's best interests to let that happen but Jack has displayed a willingness to put the good of the country ahead of the party. Iggy hasn't yet done the same.

Frank

The Liberals know that eventually Jack will retire. Then what? Right now Jack is well liked by some but we now know that the next election will be run with the parties as is, except that, “A coalition government would be “legitimate” says Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, but it’s not an option he’s willing to consider until voters determine who should govern the country after the next election.

We aren’t here to propose a coalition to anyone. We are here to propose a Liberal alternative,” Mr. Ignatieff said. From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Sunday, Jun. 06.

There's the ground work. The voters will be asked to vote for the parties as they are now with the understanding that after the election there is a possibility of the Liberals and the NDP joining together in a coalition. So we will vote either for the Conservatives or, if it looks like it's close again, for an NDP/Liberal coalition.

Liberals in Ontario and BC that do not have favourable recollections of the NDP rule there now know who to vote for, it may well not be the Liberals.

That's not ground work

That's desperation.

Ignatieff wanted to be crowned 'king of Canada' - successor to or reincarnation of Pierre Trudeau's vision of Canada and he thought all he had to do was drive up from Cambridge and wait a few months.

It isn't Jack who needs to bow out - it's Iggy. He has NO TALENT as a politician and comes across as wooden as Pee Wee does.

Of course coalitions are legitimate - only Pee Wee believes they aren't - especially when they threaten to interrupt his dreams of glory.

If Ignatieff had been a legitimate supporter of coalition government he had a chance to show that support in the first couple of months of 2009.

He didn't and the pretense that he's a supporter of a coalition now is only meant to impress people who think Liberals don't lie.

Liberals in Ontario and BC aren't Liberals - they've appropriated a progressive 'name' - that's all.

r'man

Unless the parties run as a formal coalition voters can't "vote for a coalition" as you put it.

A coalition of MPs created after an election is fine but why handicap yourself? Pooling NDP and Liberal vote totals would generate a lot more victories at the riding level so it should be obvious even to Iggy that a coalition should be declared before the election and only one coalition candidate run in each riding.

But let's face facts, the reason Iggy doesn't support it is because polling shows that even as the head of a coalition he wouldn't win. The man has no future as PM so he's grasping at the only straw he has and hoping he says something that resonates and his popularity suddenly jumps 10%. I think he's dreaming.

The Economic and Political Winds I...

This coalition effort is designed, first, by those political elements to the parliamentary system status quo, to break the usefulness to the majority populace that "minority" governance has been. It has, while being a far from "ideal" solution to the problem of defeating the extreme rightist agenda of relatively recent years, been a major obstacle to its running entirely roughshod across the postwar social contract with the working masses. It has, on the other hand, been a source of annoyance and delayed ambitions to both the Conservative AND Liberal Parties to capitalism.

AND those in the NDP Party as well, frankly, from its right wing, primarily but not exclusively centred around the leadership, who have really long wanted to become a part of the Liberal Party anyway.(The first part of this agenda was secured with the formal breaking of ties with the trade union leadership.) It's not practically possible right now just to walk right in there and be accepted by the Liberals, of course, as they'd like, so the winning of a coalition around being a part of the Liberal Party leadership regime's desire to serve the ruling economic class dream of "majority" governance again, is the current plan it seems.

(It's as likely, of course, even more likely, that in the end, the Liberals will formally or informally choose an "electoral" coalition with the Conservatives, as has been a done deal in BC for a long time, making up the Campbell years, but that's another story, and a wrinkle the NDP must be living in terror of. While the NDP is anything but a radical party that in any way threatens the ruling economic and political status quo, the "mythology" yet lives in the land, and popular mythologies amongst ruling circles have the same effect as mythological misperceptions amongst even the lower orders.)

Continued Next Post...

The Economic and Political Winds II....

From Previous Post...

Whatever "coalition" finally happens in the end, and I am convinced it will, in one or the other form, the end that will be served is NOT the lower orders interest, objective or otherwise. Rather served will be the interest of the "higher orders" in "majority" governance, further pushing the rightist/corporatist agenda in remaking capitalism into something even more closely resembling the old laissez faire social order before the last great depression. (Pre-unions and radical working class parties, and their relatively brief period of influence, such as scared their ruling asses for a short while... the blink of an eye, in historical terms.)

Regardless though, what is will continue to deteriorate for the masses, forcing them to further suffer for their myopia, and we shall just have to see what that finally brings out of The Suffering Time for them. This much is clear to a more revolutionary perspective on capitalism, and its current writhing and twisting in the economic and political winds.

I am a patient fellow. Right now there is no goddamn alternative anyway, that wins my serious interest. :-) Certainly not either a coalition of Libs and NDP, OR Libs and Cons. They are both losing options for me and my class interest aspirations :-).

COALITION

Bill, I am convinced that you have no interest in seeing the NDP in powere or partial power. I think you you just like being a whiner.
You fought STV and I know you would fight MMP in this Province even if the NDP was the dominant party in a coalition.
And you seem content with sitting on the sidelines forever at the Federal level.
You're an activist for sure, but you are certainly not a strategist.
One would hope that there are broader minds within the NDP.

Analysis.... NOT

A lot of what ifs and imagined knowledge of the electorate and respective party members.

A lot of huff and puff. Not particularly helpful to a discourse of the eventual coalition. With Iggy, without Iggy. With Jack. Without Jack. It doesn't really matter.

At the end of the day, Canada's parliament under a coalition would function just as well as they have any other parliamentary system in the world.

With very little drama to boot.

Dr. A

I have to agree with you here.

To add my bit of huff 'n' puff, I think the denigrating of coalitions in general is flak being put out by Harper - who is desperately wanting to make sure it doesn't become popular in the voters' mindset.

"It's as if political

"It's as if political differences are irrelevant compared to taking control of government. And for some, they are."

I suggest that for ALL the successful, governing politicians, gaining hold of power IS the End; it is the politician's gold medal; all the seeds of deception have born fruit.

For these people Power is the End game; Life has been given to the political campaign; There is nothing more satisfying, so quenching of one's desire, than to wield power over others. It is the ultimate fix for the power-lusting sociopath.

Remember, we are only constitutionally entitled to "some form of democracy". So until we stop with the doublethink, until we shatter the absurd idea that Canadian corporate-democracy is a people's representative democracy, we will remain the plebs.

I will never vote for Ignatieff so long as he remains a servant to real politik rather than humanity.

"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." ~ Albert Einstein

Ignatieff's academic scrolls supporting war and torture leave him falling woefully short of even a base grasp of noble human character. Avoidable war is not a 'means to an end' in any world I wish for myself or others to inhabit. The latest Iraq War was not only avoidable, it was cruel and a punishment on all humanity to pursue.

I think it goes without saying, but for clarity in any event, Harper is even worse.

Coalitions

The Canadian people has expressed its will. They have given Harper's Conservatives the most seats but the Liberals and NDP enough to form a coalition govt with the Bloc. This is what the Can Liberals, Can NDP and Bloc should do. This is what the Canadian citizens have voted for! It is time MP's started to listen to the people. The NDP and the Liberals do not have to unite their parties but they can still form a collation to run the country for the next few years. They can show Canadians what they have to offer and maybe then one of them will win a majority.

Don't Take That Shot

Here's how we get better government in Canada:
Invite all of the left-wing Liberals to stop pulling their punches and sitting on their hands and just go ahead and join the NDP. Invite all of the right-wing Liberals to just go ahead and join the Conservatives whom they vote with all of the time anyway. Two parties would have a surge of members and each would be faithful to its own principles. I'm betting an NDP renewed in this way would truly be a force to be reckoned with. Come on: take a shot at it !

Did someone say Liberal Democrats?

She's in the works...

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/06/08/liberal-ndp-new-party.html

faithful to its own principles?

Er....these ARE politicians you are talking about, right?

Mergers And Coalitions

are two different things. Harper managed a merger of the Reform/Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives, albeit with the assistance of a subterfuge (you can read 'lies and deceptions' if you prefer that term) involving Peter MacKay, and a new name for the party.

The coalition Harper successfully defeated with the help of the GG and the great unwashed (and ill-informed) public did not work because it was un-anticipated and therefore was rejected by rhe electorate after the fact.

A new coalition for the next election will now be one of the considerations that voters will have to contemplate before they mark their ballots. But both the Liberals and the NDPs should maintain their own identities, and be prepared to shake hands with each other (restraining the urge to slide in the knife) if their combined numbers top Harper's count.

The possibility of such a coalition might be the spur required to bring out the electorate, who don't like a FPTP necessarily but who like the alternative systems even less. A three-legged race could be interesting.

Bill Tieleman joins the fracus

Barney says about me: "You represent dogma."

Unfortunately Barney, you have bad karma.

The Single Transferable Vote was a disastrous electoral system that would have turned BC into a political disaster area - that's why BC voters overwhelmingly rejected it.

And the idea of endless coalitions dreamed up in backrooms with deals that are never made public would have lived large had STV been adopted.

A Liberal-NDP coalition is another bad idea that can't help either party - unless losing your principles solely to gain power is the purpose.

The recent CBC story quoting former Jean Chretien aide Warren Kinsella that is noted above only illustrates my points:

"[Warren] Kinsella would not say who was involved in the discussions, saying he did not want to "deter" people.

He added that with the Liberals polling at around 25 per cent support, a merger necessitates consideration.

"The reality is that we are in a bad position," Kinsella said.

"We don't want to see the Liberal Party of Canada disappear and I'm sure there are a lot of New Democrats who are getting fed up with their fate."

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/08/liberal-ndp-new-party.html#ixzz0qKZPtZiE

So - a desperate Liberal Party with its most right-wing leader ever needs the NDP to bail it out - and some Dippers can't wait to help!

Just like when John Turner was the equally hapless leader of the Liberals and the same sort of chatter took place.

Not going to happen. But it's a good debating point.

@Des

Very well put...and likely the best one can hope for and, as seems to be likely to come to pass in the UK, electoral reform may not be far behind.

Which eventuality, I suspect, may be something our good friend Bill Tieleman was thinking of - given his own beliefs - when he penned this piece of journalism.

I'd actually be curious to know exactly why, given the record and the regional factionalism that has dominated much of this country's history, one would NOT BE WILLING to look at democratic means of delivering the kind of results coalition government delivers in a great many other countries...

What exactly is so 'good' about the way our 'democracy' functions now?

Apart from providing sinecures for a few hundred elected and appointed officials it seems to me that the current system favours the rich, the ultra rich and a certain cabal of corporate elitists at the expense of virtually everyone else.

Why, given that, would anyone NOT WANT A CHANGE?

Do people ‘like’ having their intelligence insulted by thugs like John Baird over the second billion dollar security boondoggle inside of half a year?

Why a coalition won't work - a realistic numbers crunching

Those who want to look at a very realistic examination of the nuts and bolts of a coalition between the NDP and Liberals should read Alice Funke's excellent analysis.

Funke studied the numbers after former NDP candidate and UBC professor Michael Byers suggested a formal, one-time deal where each party would agree not to oppose the other in ridings where the other placed higher.

See it at: http://punditsguide.ca/2009/11/hill-times-column-on-vote-switching-and.php

Ottawa marches on

"The Canadian Press

Date: Tuesday Jun. 8, 2010 8:37 PM ET

OTTAWA — Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government has passed its fifth consecutive federal budget with the tacit support of the Liberal opposition.

The 2010 budget bill sailed through the House of Commons by a vote of 138-126 on Tuesday, with 30 Liberal MPs absent to ensure the budget survived -- along with the government. "

That was very decent of those Liberals to not show up.

Having supported the NDP in the past

with donations and by working on campaigns, I gotta say if there is a coalition with the Liberals, not only will my vote not count, there won't be one.

The Liberals are corrupt. They support big business at the expense of little guys like me.

I do not wish to be associated with them, in any way, shape or form.

Bill Tielman

First of all, Alice Funke's analysis only focused on BC.

Secondly, it draws firm conclusions from a foundation made up of largely guesswork.

Thirdly, it makes the offhand comment that the NDP tends to suffer the most when turnout drops (and yet more and more Dippers think not voting is the path to power) which flies in the face of your belief that its best for the party if the NDP remains in third. Obviously not since that has meant they have no motivation to show up.

The NDP wouldn't be in the position of talking to the Liberals about a Coalition or even a merger if the Left showed up on voting day. If anything, your Alice Funke puts forward a good case for abandoning the NDP as a political vehicle.

Bill

AKA, broken election promises would fall in to that category. Say anything to gain the reins of power. Then decide what to honour.

BTW, your offering up of a "one-time deal" would be more apt to leave the impression of collusion rather than cooperation. And in Canada, suspicious/disgruntled voters tend to vote AGAINST someone rather than FOR someone.

For once, it may be about contents, not form

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html

I'm not shooting at you, Frank. It's just so beautifully symbolic, that that idiomatic error sneaks into this debate. The 'moot' is part of that old set of dogma that people try to slap bill T. over the head with. But for once, I think the dogma is really not the central part of this argument. The problem is the packages of goods is still being offered by those who couldn't make it work up till now, and they're essentially still offering the same stuff. Moving a bow from the hip to the shoulder doesn't do nothing, if you just don't like the color of the dress. We need something new. Really new. Or REALLY old. Maybe we should resurrect the 'hunnerds' and see what comes up. Like Beowulf went looking for the ancient family sword, the one gotten from the Jotnar, to battle a hitherto unknown monster.

The underpinning elements....

"Remember, we are only constitutionally entitled to "some form of democracy". So until we stop with the doublethink, until we shatter the absurd idea that Canadian corporate-democracy is a people's representative democracy, we will remain the plebs." wrote sumuidave.

Now ain't that the truth. To the heart of it samuidave.

And as for the comment of Out West, as well intended as I read what he has written, the reality is that over the course of the creation of this emerging Liberal Democratic Party, which is to be the new political alliance of the so-called centre in this country, what you describe is what is going to happen: The Liberals are going to split into the Conservatives and New Dems, basically. However it comes to be described. (The NDP has long now been simply another "centrist" party in practise in any case, and this new "alliance" simply a recognition of what exists in fact, in any case.)

But what is really important to keep in mind here, I think, is that the Liberal Democratic Party in England has formed a coalition government with the Conservatives, as they launch upon a new Thatcherite attack against the British working class. It is in the character of such a political formation of the centre as Liberal Democrats represent... that one can make agreements/alliances with one's right, but never one's left. (Certainly not one's very far left.)

The other matter not to lose sight of here is, that it represents a new push to break "minority" governance and form a new "majority" that can push through the rightist economic and social agenda of the ruling class. This is its bare bones, inner sexual drive.

I have long here been saying that this was/is coming, this attempt to establish a new ruling class serving majority, yet I find no satisfaction in being finally proved correct. Save to say, that this actually represents but a new stage in the breakdown of the ruling order, and a new, even desperate attempt to salvage it, to snatch it from the jaws of self-destruction. Really however, it is simply the further manifestation of the deterioration processes that have been at work within capitalism since the late 70s and early 80s.

This too shall run its course, a near majority of the electorate will still be unmoved to participate in the sham processes of this bourgeois democracy, and the underpinning economics of it all will continue to unravel.

At least with the already old New Democrats out of the way, the pretence of a real left in this country is shattered entirely, and can now be dispensed with. :-) Save for the lingering mythological misperceptions of some intellectual opportunists, of course. :-)

Further elaboration required...

"This too shall run its course, a near majority of the electorate will still be unmoved to participate in the sham processes of this bourgeois democracy, and the underpinning economics of it all will continue to unravel."

Upon reconsidering this paragraph I have written, I find it is, or may not be entirely true. For a while in the early heady drunkeness stage of especially the media, around the creation of this new "centre" concencus that is to save capitalism and its so-called democracy, it may in fact occur that some will be won from the side-lines of non-participation, to cast their vote for this new Great Hope. This too, however, shall sooner or later pass, as the underpinning realities come to establish themselves.

just because... its all an illusion

Just because you don't wear shackles, doesn't mean your not a slave. Just because you change your appearance doesn't mean your nature is different.

Who to believe

"The leaders of the federal Liberals and NDP are pouring cold water on a CBC report that their parties have been holding secret talks about possibly merging to form a new entity to take on the Conservatives.

Rae, who ran against Ignatieff in the 2006 party leadership contest, said there was "no substance" to the rumours, and advised the media to "take a deep breath and get a grip.

"I think we all have to recognize that in politics, particularly toward the end of a session, all sorts of rumours start flying around, but this one has absolutely no substance that I can detect," said the Liberal MP.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/09/liberal-ndp-merger-reax.html#ixzz0qNpwfc6W

r'man

All those denials probably mean the talks are going nowhere, not that they didn't take place.

another coalition attempt shot down by NDP pork choppers

I remember "An open letter to British Columbians: a coalition to win the 2005 election" which sought a coalition between the BC NDP and BC Greens. It was signed first by:

Lisa Barrett, Mayor of Bowen Island
Marion Best, Naramata
David R. Boyd, environmental lawyer and professor, Pender Island
David Chudnovsky, past president, British Columbia Teachers' Federation, Vancouver
David Coles, Vice-President, Western Region, Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Vancouver
Murray Dobbin, Council of Canadians, Vancouver
Patty Ducharme, Regional Executive Vice-President (BC), Public Service Alliance of Canada
Claire Kujundzic, artist and hunger-striker, Wells
Dr. Gabor Maté, physician, Vancouver
Ellie O'Day, past chair, Alliance for Arts and Culture, Vancouver
Robert Smith, former moderator, United Church of Canada, Sunshine Coast
Ben Swankey, executive board member, Seniors' Network of BC, Burnaby
Jean Swanson, Anti-Poverty Activist, Vancouver

Then a lot of rank and file union people, enviros and activists signed onto the idea.

The coalition called for:
. increased support and resources for public health care and public education
. a sustainable, diversified economic strategy
. levels of social assistance and publicly-funded, community-based supports and services that provide security, dignity and inclusion for all
. public services that are accountable to and meet community interests and needs
. a healthy and sustainable environment
. recognition of the rights of Aboriginal people
. the right of workers to participate in free collective bargaining and have negotiated contracts honoured
. a system of proportional representation

I guess Bill T didn't like that last part. And here we are, with the Liberals wreaking havoc in their 3rd term.

The Bloc

Bill,

As long as the Bloc Quebecois, essentially a single-interest regional party, ties up about one sixth of the seats in Parliament, I believe it will be difficult to achieve a majority government with three other 'major' parties.

Jack be nimble

Jack be quick as its hard to know what to believe anymore but I do remember Mr. Layton saying he wanted to work with the other parties because it made for a stronger Canada. It would make for a fairer representation of the country as the 30% that beholding most of the country has laid down all the rules and has all the say. And with the Liberals its just more of the same when teaming up with the Conservatives because its what it amounts to as the rest of Canada is left out in the cold. I understand no one is asking any party to change their views as the Liberals are not supposed to be out of their element when working with the NDP, so whats the problem? Jack don't jump over the Coalition just yet as times are changing and so are Canadians.

Green Party Pro Capitalist

The Green Party got side swiped some years ago and was essentially hijacked by monopoly capitalism. Sadly, ever since, they have been unable to critique the structural drivers behind todays runaway destructive industries, which of course is deeply rooted in economic philosophy. Until the Green Party can rationally address and understand progressive economic theory, they will remain exactly where they are, sidetracked.

In the end, this is unfortunate for us all, including the NDP. Perhaps one day the Green Party will question their support of the oligarchy.

Iggy Today (09 June)...

....vehemently denounced the notion of merger/coalition, saying that it was the LIBERALS function to hold the Conservatives to task for their fiscal irresponsibility.

This, the day after 30 Liberal MPs were "not available" to vote on the budget, this ensuring the Conservative's "irresponsible" budget would pass.

The more he opens his mouth, the more he demonstrates he is just the other side of the same coin. There is a defacto coalition in Ottawa, regardless of what Iggy pronounces.

Any Form Of

Proportional Representation will result in many minority parties in Parliament. Not necessarily a good thing. What is needed is a series of run-off votes with each M.P. eventually receiving a majority in his/her riding.

This allows the voter to contemplate the progress of each election in totality, and to change (or not change) the selection possibilities as they occur, depending on what is happening in all the other ridings. No real surprises. And best of all, it would send a genuine message to the Government, letting it know what we, the people, really, really want. And also what we won't tolerate. We might even get the government, good or bed, that we deserve.

The Pull of Forbidden Love...

"All those denials probably mean the talks are going nowhere, not that they didn't take place." wrote Frank,

OR, it's like engaging in extra-marital sex. Deny, deny, deny, even in the face of lipstick on their collars and suggestive stains in their shorts.

And everyone now knows the "other" scarlet woman's name. Liberal Democracy.

We are still in the sneaking around/denial stage of this bed hopping tear jerker.

Already the grand old men of the NDP priesthood at least, Broadbent and Romanow, have given their blessing to the new coupling. Jack's still wearing his NDP ring afterall. Likewise Ignatieff and, blush, Bob Rae.

It's possible that it is all still in the hot and heavy flirtation stage, and no vital fluids have yet been exchanged.

In the end, this current affair may prove too much of an embarassment for the parties, of course, and everyone will return for now, back to their marital beds and maintaining appearances. But ahhhh, the pull of forbidden love... the sideways glances and accidental meetings in the hallowed hallways of parliament.

Such things take time to work around and overcome... these committments of the past.

As I said yesterday, Jack might close the NDP

"Liberal president talked merger: affidavits
June 9, 2010 | 10:55 PM ET

Two Liberal Party advisers have sworn affidavits saying the federal party's president spoke to them about high-level discussions with NDP officials about the creation of a new party.

...the NDP would have to comply with three conditions: renouncing socialism and embracing a mixed-market economy; accepting Michael Ignatieff as leader ...

Many Liberal insiders confirmed that discussions between the two parties are not just focused on forming a coalition after an election or co-operation before one, but the creation of a new party.

The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats...."

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/09/liberals-ndp-merger-kinsella.html#ixzz0qQANBiRy

How would that affect the provincial NDP parties?

RickW

You're right of course - the coalition is between the Ignatieff Liberals and the Pee Wee Rambo Conservatives...neither of these suspects has the interests of more than about 34% of the population in mind when they vote on ANYTHING in the House of Commons.

Only good thing about this period of dismal history - more and more people are beginning to catch on to the game of the neocons; that can't be a bad thing.

Plodding and plotting along to Majorityville:

Coyoteman reveals the real deus ex machina at work here:

"The other matter not to lose sight of here is, that it represents a new push to break "minority" governance and form a new "majority" that can push through the rightist economic and social agenda of the ruling class. This is its bare bones, inner sexual drive.

I have long here been saying that this was/is coming, this attempt to establish a new ruling class serving majority, yet I find no satisfaction in being finally proved correct. Save to say, that this actually represents but a new stage in the breakdown of the ruling order, and a new, even desperate attempt to salvage it, to snatch it from the jaws of self-destruction. "

Since Iggy blindly passed

Since Iggy blindly passed the budget and blindly passes everything Harper and the cons submit except for a brief moment last fall when he pretended he had balls, would not a Liberal Party/Conservative Party (aka Republican Party of Canada) merger be more appropriate than one with NDP?

CanadianLatitude

It certainly would be more appropriate and the optics would be great for the NDP too. They'd pick up a lot of disenchanted Liberals who wouldn't follow their leader into the same party as Harper and Day.

r'man

That wouldn't be a coalition or even a merger, that would simply be a swallowing of the NDP by the Liberals. I'm sure it would get 100% support from Liberals but 0% from New Democrats.

If true, it means the Liberals don't get it.

Time to re-focus...

In addition to all the "rightist" possibilities being described here, around the possible creations of a Liberal Democratic Party and what Canadian Latitudes describes as a Repblican style Conservative Party in this country... Which we really already have. ...there is another "unintended consequence" possibility that could emerge here. And which, mistakenly I think, no one is paying any attention to.

I, for example, am increasingly focussed on the "serious left" in the NDP: the pro-labour, anti-capitalist, progressive social change,radical environmentalist, intellectual and activist left there. Where now it is clear that a lot of time, money and committment has been seriously wasted. There is still the serious need and opportunity for the building of a "serious left" movement in this country, in the workplaces, amongst the intelligentsia, in communities and on the streets.

The left has wasted too much capital already on the NDP. It's time to re-focus.

Frank

Yep! Any time anyone suggests renouncing socialism you know you're dealing with right wing neandercons...Socialism is the whole point of progressive politics - without it, you're just blowing smoke.

GWest

The Conservatives would agree with 2 out of 3 of the Liberal requirements, maybe that's who the Libs should be talking to?

There is no way the NDP can or should embrace the current philosophy of market-economics.

Any News?

According to the CBC report Broadbent and Romanow were in on the Liberal/NDP merger meetings. Any news from them?

See the Web 2.0 Democracy on CBC?

Are they voting to take down the Cons or take out the NDP, or just to crown Iggy?

What do you think of the idea of a Liberal-NDP merger to create a new poltical party? Take our poll.
Thank you for voting!
Yes 56.8% (212 votes)
No 35.7% (133 votes)
Undecided 7.5% (28 votes)

The Coffee Is On...

"What do you think of the idea of a Liberal-NDP merger to create a new poltical party? Take our poll.
Thank you for voting!
Yes 56.8% (212 votes)
No 35.7% (133 votes)
Undecided 7.5% (28 votes)"

I haven't taken this poll, but if I did, I'd vote in favour of it... if for no other reason than to finally dispense with this lingering mythological illusion that the NDP is any kind of a serious "left-wing" political grouping. Which it has not been for a very long time.

The NDP has long been a kind of second Liberal Party in this country anyway. It is time for the triumph of reality over illusion... and to free the actual left that remains within it, to pursue another "more real" agenda. (Like I've already pointed out, the Liberal Democrats in Great Britain are in a governing coalition with the Thatcherist Conservatives.)

The NDP, or at least its leadership, is now, it would appear, finally to get fulfillment of the viagra fantasy that has been providing it with a hard-on for a long time now.

The Liberals on the other hand are also going to split right and left, as is the NDP. It is time for the remnant left still in the NDP (and in the labour movement) to wake up and deal more appropriately with the newly emerging realities of (a)a disintegrating economic and political reality for capitalism everywheere and, (b) a seriously growing power vacuum on the serious reformist and revolutionary left.

It is time to begin to fill this latter big black hole especially, beginning with a regions/provincial agitation period to sound out the realistic prospects for a conference call of everyone interested in serious socio-economic, democratic, and environmental practise change. The seed bed needs preparation.

The waste of time that has been the NDP, Liberal and Green choices needs to be moved away from posthaste, by those finally disillusioned and increasingly radicalized elements within these political parties who want serious, sweeping and meaningful change. The coffee is on. Anyone smell it?

realisticman

Iggy couldn't win an election if his life depended on it (say - maybe that's a good idea). So why should the NDP agree to support this loser?

News Flash: Premier Gordon Campbell attended Bilderberg

Premier Gordon Campbell attended Bilderberg meeting to get his marching orders... also Peter Mansbridge of CBC... http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/06/09/14327506.html

Thought I'd share this not so important news with a couple of Tyee readers... Campbell must have done a great job for his masters to be awarded with the privilege of attending such a prestigious event

Bilderberg & Campbell

Maybe he was fishing for a chair on the board of directors (any company would do) for his retirement....