The article you just read was brought to you by a few thousand dedicated readers. Will you join them?

Thanks for coming by The Tyee and reading one of many original articles we’ll post today. Our team works hard to publish in-depth stories on topics that matter on a daily basis. Our motto is: No junk. Just good journalism.

Just as we care about the quality of our reporting, we care about making our stories accessible to all who want to read them and provide a pleasant reading experience. No intrusive ads to distract you. No paywall locking you out of an article you want to read. No clickbait to trick you into reading a sensational article.

There’s a reason why our site is unique and why we don’t have to rely on those tactics — our Tyee Builders program. Tyee Builders are readers who chip in a bit of money each month (or one-time) to our editorial budget. This amazing program allows us to pay our writers fairly, keep our focus on quality over quantity of articles, and provide a pleasant reading experience for those who visit our site.

In the past year, we’ve been able to double our staff team and boost our reporting. We invest all of the revenue we receive into producing more and better journalism. We want to keep growing, but we need your support to do it.

Fewer than 1 in 100 of our average monthly readers are signed up to Tyee Builders. If we reach 1% of our readers signing up to be Tyee Builders, we could continue to grow and do even more.

If you appreciate what The Tyee publishes and want to help us do more, please sign up to be a Tyee Builder today. You pick the amount, and you can cancel any time.

Support our growing independent newsroom and join Tyee Builders today.
Before you click away, we have something to ask you…

Do you value independent journalism that focuses on the issues that matter? Do you think Canada needs more in-depth, fact-based reporting? So do we. If you’d like to be part of the solution, we’d love it if you joined us in working on it.

The Tyee is an independent, paywall-free, reader-funded publication. While many other newsrooms are getting smaller or shutting down altogether, we’re bucking the trend and growing, while still keeping our articles free and open for everyone to read.

The reason why we’re able to grow and do more, and focus on quality reporting, is because our readers support us in doing that. Over 5,000 Tyee readers chip in to fund our newsroom on a monthly basis, and that supports our rockstar team of dedicated journalists.

Join a community of people who are helping to build a better journalism ecosystem. You pick the amount you’d like to contribute on a monthly basis, and you can cancel any time.

Help us make Canadian media better by joining Tyee Builders today.
We value: Our readers.
Our independence. Our region.
The power of real journalism.
We're reader supported.
Get our newsletter free.
Help pay for our reporting.
Opinion

In Defence of Cullen's Idea for NDP, Liberal, Green Cooperation

Five rebuttals to Bill Tieleman's objections to a winning plan for 2015.

By Jamey Heath 21 Feb 2012 | TheTyee.ca

Jamey Heath was Jack Layton's communications director from 2002 to 2006. He supports Nathan Cullen for leader.

image atom
BC MP Nathan Cullen, candidate for federal NDP leadership.

[Editor's note: Bill Tieleman's column "The Case Against an NDP, Liberal, Green Coalition" published this morning on The Tyee immediately sparked a storm of tweets and debate. Here is a rebuttal just submitted by a key supporter of NDP leadership candidate Nathan Cullen.]

Bill Tieleman criticized Nathan Cullen's proposal for progressive, federalist parties to cooperate to get more things done. I'm grateful for a chance to rebut.

First, a recap of what Mr. Cullen proposes. In Conservative-held seats, ridings should be allowed to hold run-off nominations among the NDP, Liberals and Greens to see which party runs.

Mr. Tieleman raises two main objections. The first is about changing the voting system. This would be a nice problem to consider because it would mean there's a progressive majority government to ponder it.

So let's leave that aside and focus on Mr. Cullen's proposal. Mr. Tieleman demurs because he "couldn't vote for [Vancouver Quadra Liberal] MP Joyce Murray" due to her cutting environmental spending in provincial government. Here's a suggestion: don't. As a Liberal seat, Quadra would not be covered by Mr. Cullen's plan, and other alleged flaws with it deserve a response, too.

Objection one: If done earlier, the NDP wouldn't have broken through

Mr. Tieleman writes that, "NDP voters now know that their party would never have won official Opposition status in 2011 if electoral cooperation efforts had been successful." And? Mr. Cullen did not propose it then. He proposes it now.

The reason is that on May 2, Stephen Harper won a majority.

A second majority was also created on May 2: A federalist one in Quebec for the first time since 1988. All the same, the words "federalist" and "sovereignty" don't appear in Mr. Tieleman's critique. Odd, given the second-biggest province just resoundingly voted to work together more in a progressive federalism.

Why reflect a pre-May 2 reality when the future lies ahead?

Objection two: Strategic voting failed so cooperation will, too

Critiques of Mr. Cullen's proposal equate it with so-called strategic voting.

Mr. Cullen is not proposing strategic voting because Mr. Tieleman is right: it does not work. He's proposing cooperation.

Objection three: The differences between the parties are too vast

No, they're not.

Every candidate proposes some form of cooperation with Liberals. Brian Topp has many things he'd consider: a coalition; an accord like the one in Ontario in the 1980s; an alliance case-by-case. He helped orchestrate 2008's would-be coalition, when Peggy Nash was party president and Niki Ashton, Paul Dewar and Thomas Mulcair were all MPs who said yes.

If differences are so vast, why does everyone agree the parties can work together?

The issue isn't if Liberals made some horrendous mistakes in government. They did. Rather, it's that given everybody agrees they'd cooperate after an election, why not cooperate beforehand, too?

Voters also like cooperation. In 2005, Jack Layton could have defeated Paul Martin in a confidence vote. He did a budget instead. The NDP did better in the next election. In 2008, Mr. Layton tried a coalition with the party of the sponsorship scandal; in the next election, the NDP won 59 seats in Quebec.

Objection four: Votes are not transferable

Mr. Tieleman quotes Aristotle: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," and says that votes for the NDP, Liberals and Greens are not totally transferable. True.

But the whole that's greater than the sum -- the combined seat count of the NDP, Liberals, Bloc and Greens -- has shrunk in each of the last four elections.

This is not something to crow about. It's something to fix.

Objection five: The parties will never agree

It's ironic that objections to Mr. Cullen's proposal usually note that the unthinkable (the NDP's Quebec breakthrough) actually did happen, and then go on to say the unthinkable (parties cooperating) can never happen.

I disagree. The longer Mr. Harper's majority is in office, the more people there are who bemoan its choices. And at the end of the day, elections are about citizens, not the arcane constitutions -- which can all be changed -- of political parties.

That parties ran in every seat in the Second World War is nice. But the Second World War was not fought in the same way as the First World War. Let's talk about 2015, not 1945.  [Tyee]

Read more: Politics

Share this article

The Tyee is supported by readers like you

Join us and grow independent media in Canada

Facts matter. Get The Tyee's in-depth journalism delivered to your inbox for free

LATEST STORIES

The Barometer

Tyee Poll: What Coverage Would You Like to See More of This Year?

Take this week's poll