Categories: Blog Central

Workin' in a coalition mine Whoop! About to slip down

It’s been so long. Time for a new variation on a favourite old tune:…

by Paul Wells on Friday, September 12, 2008 7:37am - 71 Comments

It’s been so long. Time for a new variation on a favourite old tune: The question of just what Elizabeth May will do if this election gets to the home stretch and Green votes could conceivably make the difference between a Conservative and a Liberal government is posed again by this morning’s La Presse. As you will recall, May has seemed in the past to suggest she would do anything to stop the Conservatives, including calling on less-competitive candidates in every riding to throw their support to the leading pro-environmental candidate (defined as “not Conservative”) (defined therefore, in most but not all ridings outside Quebec, as “the Liberal”).

Now there’s more. I want to emphasize that Joël-Denis Bellavance’s story in La Presse is exceptionally darkly sourced (“a Liberal source well-informed of the talks between Liberals and Greens”) and it contains a formal denial from May’s spokesperson (“It’s without basis”). But what it suggests is interesting:

“But this pact also provides for Mme May to pronounce herself in favour of the election of Stéphane Dion as Prime Minister in the final days of the election campaign…

“‘The idea of the accord, it’s like a non-aggression pact so that on the eve of the vote, we arrange it so the environmentalist forces in urban centres rally around Stéphane Dion. In the discussions with Mme May, it was implicitly understood that she put out a call in favour of Mr. Dion. That has always been the spirit of the agreement,’ said a Liberal source well-informed of the talks between Liberals and Greens.”

Again, I need to emphasize that I don’t find the level of sourcing in this story satisfactory, given the prominence La Presse has given it. It’s a story about an accusation launched anonymously by a political opponent of the Greens. It does not settle the question it raises. But now the question is raised, in one of Canada’s largest newspapers. May is doing media interviews in Toronto today. The question, it seems to me, is not so much “Is there a pact?” It’s to test the negative: “Can you say right now that every Green candidate must stay in the race right up to election day, even if their vote could be what keeps a Liberal from winning?” Or, more simply, “You’ve said you do not want to be the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics. What does that mean?”

And since the source for this story is a Liberal, Stéphane Dion should be asked his understanding of his own agreement with May. Does that agreement contain clauses whose import we haven’t yet seen?

Tags: Election Watch, Elizabeth May, La Presse

More by Paul Wells

Paul Wells

Activist, would you have been entirely credulous about what a Conservative said about what the Liberals were planning? Or a Liberal about what Harper planned? Or a Liberal about Elizabeth May? I’m more inclined to hang my hat on what people say about their own party. ‘Cause they, like, actually know what their own parties are doing. I don’t even see why that’s a difficult distinction to draw.
Dennis Prouse

To the extent there ever was a deal, I expect May to back away from it if it appears as if the Liberals are going to lose. If Harper’s re-election appears inevitable in that last week, why would she throw votes (and subsequent post-election money) away like that? It only makes sense if it looks as if Dion might pull out a win.

Even at that, you can bet that the Green Party, never a bastion of unity at the best of times, would fracture badly upon the announcement of this news. Scores of Green candidates would disavow it instantly, and the internal strife within the Green ranks, always bubbling below the surface at the best of times, would make the old Canadian Alliance leadership fights look like a church picnic.
geo

The question becomes,at the end,when the results are in, will Ms.May still think Canadians as being stupid, or will Canadians think of her as being the stupid one.
Brian C.

If May does throw her support behind the Liberals, this would make her lie complete to Green Party supporters. In the GPC English debate, she was very explicit in stating that she would not seek to make alliances with other parties. If she can break promises to her own party, she certainly is able to break promises to anyone.
Jack Mitchell

The way I read May’s unstated position, together with the Liberal spin in this article, is that she’ll end up backing Liberal or NDP candidates where she can, depending on the riding.

I agree that might be politically damaging for the Greens among certain voters, but it might also (next time around?) increase Green support as non-fanatics perceive that supporting the Greens need not be a waste or an objectively pro-Harper vote-splitter.

As to the legitimacy of the tactic, how else can new parties emerge in FPTP? Without the option of throwing support to a larger party on election day, a small party effectively must campaign against its own ideas. That doesn’t strike me as very healthy for democracy.

Meanwhile, Peter MacKay can attest that secret deals are not always what they’re cooked up to be.
Bill Simpson

The key aspect of the supposed deal is that it is between Dion and May, the result of which has to be by definition confused, contradictory, poorly communicated and the outcome of wishful thinking.

Or, in one word, doomed.
Gabby in QC

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070414/dion_deal_070414/20070414?hub=Politics
“Liberal Leader Stephane Dion is dismissing any criticism within his party about *a non-aggression deal* struck with Green Leader Elizabeth May.
Dion has agreed not to run a Liberal candidate in May’s Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova, which is currently held by Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay.
*In exchange, May is endorsing Dion as the best candidate to become prime minister.*
Opinion within Liberal ranks is sharply divided. …”

AND

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070413/Liberals_May_070413?s_name=&no_ads=
“ … Under the terms of the *non-compete agreement,* May has agreed not to run a candidate against Dion and will essentially endorse him as prime minister. …
During the news conference May touted Dion as the answer to Canada’s climate change struggles, saying she has worked closely with him and has become convinced *he is the best choice to lead Canada.* …”

Is that enough sourcing? Can I believe what journalists write when they quote politicians? Can I? Can I?

Or should I believe journalists when they quote anonymous sources only if they attack the Conservatives?
What a dilemma!
Brian

I never did understand the debate over whether it is democratic or not to exclude Liz May. I agree with Paul that she only provides a distraction from the real contest, which is between parties that actually have a chance to form the government. Whether she appears in the debate or not has nothing to do with her secret deal with Dion.

For the same reason, I’d like to see the organizers drop Gilles Duceppe since he is not running for PM and I find it ludicrous that the BQ leader is allowed to use up valuable debate time since his party, by definition, has no interest in forming government.
catherine

I really like May because she is inclined to say what she thinks and believes. This is in sharp contrast to Harper and Layton, where Harper’s side only talked about the deal they had after it blew up in their faces. Layton never has come clean and dismissed the concerns of thousands of voters as a “distraction”. So, if this deal had worked, we never would have known that Harper and Layton conspired together to keep Canadians from hearing May.

Since Harper and Layton have been so secretive about the deals they make together, I am much more curious about learning more about them. Did they conspire on which confidence motions to bring forward or on election strategy/timing?

Meanwhile, May is an open book compared to Harper/Dion and so she is much more likely to tell us if something is going on.
catherine

That should be: Meanwhile, May is an open book compared to Harper/Layton and so she is much more likely to tell us if something is going on.
Dion was open about his deal with May and anyone who has seen the CPC website knows what Harper thinks of Dion.
Ryan

Paul, I’ll use your paragraph about questions that leaders should be asked to ask something about your interview with the PM. For Harper’s term in government one of your frequent complaints is that no reporter has asked him about the Iraq war. Then you got a sit down with him and didn’t ask. Why not? Not that I think your questions were softballs. You asked good questions and he gave good answers. But I would have expected that to be at the top of your list.
catherine

BTW, on Layton and Harper’s more than year long deal to thwart democratic representation, it wasn’t even secret sources. In addition to the usual “top Tory” sources, two co-chairs of Harper’s campaign also talked about how Harper was only supporting Layton and how Harper’s team had contacted Layton’s team earlier that day to see if Layton was ready to cave or not, so they would know how to respond themselves. What is more fundamental than conspiring behind closed doors to make sure Canadians can’t hear a political leader speak?

Meanwhile, if May were ever going to advise voters of something, they could still do what they wanted at the ballot box. I don’t see any comparison to the attempt at censorship of political representation that Layton and Harper conspired on.

Not interested in writing about that, Mr. Wells?
Jan

In spirit of Tommy Douglas, voted most famous Canadian, here comes the 2008 edited version of Mouseland

Mouseland Revisited 2008 edition

Snip

And when they couldn’t take that anymore, they voted the white cats out and put the black ones in again.

Then they went back to the white cats.

Then to the black cats.

They even tried half black cats and half white cats. And they called that coalition.

THEN THE GREEN CATS DECIDED TO ENDORSE THE RED CATS. AND THEY CALLED THAT “DOING POLITICS DIFFERENTLY”.

And as Tommy said,

You see, my friends, the trouble wasn’t with the colour of the cat. The trouble was that they were cats. And because they were cats, they naturally looked after cats instead of mice.
Joan Tintor

“would you have been entirely credulous about what a Conservative said about what the Liberals were planning? Or a Liberal about what Harper planned?”

Wells makes a good point. Maybe this is bogus and the Liberals are floating it to drive down the support of their erstwhile purported ally or at least non-enemy.

I wish I could say there was some kind of long-term strategic genius on the Liberals’ part in making an alliance with May, followed by pulling the rug out from under her once the writ dropped, but I doubt it.
billg

Puffins…apology’s…suspensions..resignations.
planes that dont fly….secret party deal’s..
Honestly…the Sens v Leafs even when Domi was good wasnt this much fun!!! Is there a way I can vote for all of them and have this happen every couple of years!!! Carry on.
Aaron

Well if were going to entertain this than we have to entertain the JACK + STEVIE back room deal.

I just found it interesting that the ‘dear leader’ would take his cue from Jack Layton.
http://www.wart.ca Steve W

Calgary Junkie, way back wrote “To the fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, democratic reformers, Quebec bleus, etc … A united Conservative Party can’t give you everything you want, or even MOST of what you want, in the way of policies. But it can give you a heck of a lot more than the Liberals will EVER give you.”

Imagine if the Liberals took a stand like that?

“To the working class, environmentally conscious social progressive, or marginalized cultural communities: the Liberal Party can’t give you everything you want, or even most of what you want, in the way of policies. But it can give you a heck of a lot more than the Conservatives will ever give you.”

But I guess the left want everything, and they would rather fight amongst themselves than get it.
Jenn

Wow. Wayne’s talking points have been found by Sue. I can tell because of the lack of punctuation. But where Wayne is amusing in a slightly sad way, Sue is simply vindictive and hateful.

We miss you, Wayne! Hoping your having fun with Dion tonight.
Dot

Wells just got SUEd by the Green Party.
http://bctrialofbasi-virk.blogspot.com BC Mary

.
All style. No substance. Stupid topic.

Paul Wells, if you don’t like what a commentor says, delete it and move on.

It’s rotten bad taste, bad manners, bad sportsmanship, bad journalism to insult a commentor attempting to participate. Stop it. It’s so Harperish.

.
Phillip Huggan

It’s nice to see one of the leaders come out strong on national security. The agenda that she’s calling is for boomers to “delay” investment into growing jobs (building contractors, wind turbine supply chain, railroad supply chain, agri/desalination R+D, etc.) long enough for boomers to start using last-year-of-life healthcare (2013 is when males start to die)…S.Harper intends to leaving his own children a pre-WWII. He intends for younger Canadians and those who care for the future world’s poor, to just sit and take it and not retaliate. Why do Conservatives even have children?
Anyways, I’ve seen a voting methodology where 2nd place votes are accredited, which would make sense if we ever go to a two or three party system; be good for USA now. Otherwise, you get socially stuck if you make a mistake (corporatism USA), always moving to the gravity of the middle to win. Pandemic=AGW+rich.