Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

All the good things and the bad things that may be

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, June 4, 2010 10:59am - 164 Comments

Scott Reid, the former aide to Paul Martin, notes the important distinction between a pre-election coalition and a post-election coalition.

Indeed, from a Liberal perspective, a pre-campaign coalition of the centre-left is far worse than a bad idea. It is a betrayal of the party’s identity, history and future prospects. Why? Because what’s being proposed is not a true parliamentary coalition. It is a political combination or, more accurately: a merger.

It’s important to clarify these terms. Typically in Canadian experience, a coalition between parties is understood to mean a parliamentary alliance established in the aftermath of a general election – usually a minority circumstance. This is in keeping with accepted traditions of both the country and the party. Post-electoral coalitions of a formal and informal nature have populated minority parliaments frequently over the past century and Liberals have often taken part. Consideration of such coalitions should definitely be maintained in future.

Bookmark and Share
  • Gayle

    He's right.

    • Curt

      What does this say about the current leader of the Liberail party?
      Is he not up to the task of winning an election?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    "Indeed, from a Liberal perspective, a pre-campaign coalition of the centre-left is far worse than a bad idea. It is a betrayal of the party’s identity, history and future prospects. Why? Because what’s being proposed is not a true parliamentary coalition. It is a political combination or, more accurately: a merger."

    Nonsense. This is Reid panicking at the idea of seeing his cherished LPC dynasty tainted by the NDP.

    Talks of a coalition have to begin now if we are to have a deal soon after the next election.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

      Completely agree. My God, the Liberal party needs to understand we just simply aren't the sly manipulative spin-doctors the Conservatives are and just quit trying if this drivel is the best we can do. I don't actually mind not being sly and manipulative.

      Typically in Canadian experience, a coalition is whatever it is. I don't hear anyone talking seriously about a merger. Taking a possible coalition off the table before or during an election period is stupid, and not only that, we've PROVEN it's stupid.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        Reid is just more eloquent version of Soudas.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/TJCook TJCook

          Yeah, call me when Reid hides behind his staff to avoid a summons or fails to show up at the request of a Parliamentary committee. Until then, they are not equal.

        • The Real Jan

          Please – Soudas, like Levant, is a one off.

  • Emily

    Absolutely.

    A merger? Good idea…but coalitions are temporary things after elections.

  • John D

    While he's right in these couple of paragraphs, I'd generally recommend that Liberals not take advice from Scott Reid…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      Ya think? Reid represents the old boy's Liberal Club and is completely out of touch with what Canadians truly want.

      • Emily

        And what do Canadians 'truly' want?

        • LiveBloggin Junkie

          A Stanley Cup won on home ice

          • Emily

            LOL well I was thinking of something more achievable.

          • John D

            You'd win with that campaign :D

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          According to the latest polls?

          A sound policy to address our shortcoming on climate change
          A comprehensive plan to address our unsustainable healthcare system
          A political vision that will seek to ensure our prosperity and competitiveness in an increasingly globalized economy
          An end to the acrimony in Parliament and the opportunity to be proud of our leaders once more

          I can keep going…

          • Emily

            And the minute it looks like it's going to cost a nickel, everyone will be against those things.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            And you base that assumption on what?

          • Emily

            Dion had a green plan.

            And we've seen it many times before. Everybody wants everything.

            They just don't want to pay for it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "Dion had a green plan."

            Meaning what? You think that he lost the election because of the Green Shift?

          • Emily

            Yes, that's why he lost the election.

            Cons made mincemeat out of him with 'a tax on everything.'

            But we'd have been world leaders by now.

          • tobyornotoby

            He lost the election because he couldn't connect with voters on the priorities. Carbon taxes and carbon trading are too abstract for an election campaign, and I'll repeat what no one seems to want to hear in policy circles: Pricing measures are only a tool, not a policy. There needs to be a combination of regulation, incentives, disincentives and infrastructure development to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Pricing measures alone are a cop out. They need to be backed with action and enforcement.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "Pricing measures are only a tool"

            Did you read the Green Shift document? Because there was far more than just a pricing measure to it.

          • Emily

            Half the country is functionally illiterate. The rest of us are scientifically illiterate….Dion didn't have a chance, yet it was a good plan, and went beyond 'pricing measures.'

            However…'a tax on everything' killed it.

            Like I said, everyone wants to play, no one wants to pay.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Gee… You sound like those pundits who were convinced that Canadians were too stupid to understand big words like prorogation.

            Emily, most voters didn't even know about the Green Shift when they went to the polls. That's not what sank Dion.

          • Andrew (not PorC)

            The problem is that voters are eager to believe convenient lies. Climate change is a hoax by the scientific establishment to secure research grants. Conveniently, it means we don't have to do anything to curb fossil fuel consumption. I wonder why it's such a popular idea among the unthinking (not that all skeptics are unthinking).

          • Emily

            Yes, it's a popular notion, because it's cheaper that way.

            At least in the short term, and that's as far as most people think.

            The next quarter, the next election….

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Andrew, most people believe that climate change is a man-made problem. The polls are clear on this.

          • Emily

            It's exactly what sank Dion, nothing else.

            And he was out selling it long before an election.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            We'll just have to agree to disagree.

          • Emily

            Fine.

            But the fact remains that none of those things are doable without money.

            And that's where you lose people.

  • hosertohoosier

    This is utterly untrue. European parties often express their preferred coalition partners in advance without ending the unique identity of their respective parties. If you are going to consider coalitions, it is your duty to give the voters a sense of what you are planning, because coalition plans may be essential to the formation of the next government (and because it is pretty obvious that 1+1 does not always equal two, whether you look at the PC-Alliance merger or the December 2008 coalition).

    Of course if Reid wants to go there, I guess he would have no problem agreeing to keep Liberal and NDP combined spending below the 20 million dollar cap, should the two parties pre-announce a coalition.

    • PolJunkie

      I actually agree with hoser on the need to disclose intentions. If the LPC plans to go into the next election by denying that a coalition is being considered, they will deliver a win to the CPC on a silver platter.

      • Out There

        I would state the exact opposite: if the Liberals and NDP go into the next election explicitly planning a coalition, that would deliver a win to the CPC. I can see the attack ads already: "The choice is clear. Us, or the separatists and socialists."

        I have long suspected that some pro-CPC commenters (I'm not referring to you) are suggesting a pre-election coalition precisely because such a move would weaken the Liberals' and NDP's election prospects. If you can get the enemy to weaken itself, that's a win for you.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          "I have long suspected that some pro-CPC commenters (I'm not referring to you) are suggesting a pre-election coalition precisely because such a move would weaken the Liberals' and NDP's election prospects. If you can get the enemy to weaken itself, that's a win for you."

          That's because you have bought into the Tory propaganda that Canadians would be opposed to this idea. You also seem to believe that words like "socialists" freak the average canadian. That may be so in Alberta but not necessarily the case in other parts of Canada. Specifically, the parts that count the most in the next election: Quebec and Ontario. I firmly believe that should Harper launch into that kind of campaign, he will lose all 11 seats in Quebec, including Bernier's.

          Harper has been able to stay at that point in the polls because he's projected the image of a progressive leader. This coalition will force him to swing right and that will be his undoing. Mark my words.

          • hosertohoosier

            A coalition would not force Harper to swing to the right. Politics abhors a vacuum. Opening up the issue-space in the centre by creating a coalition would enable Harper to occupy that hallowed political turf. The sheer fear of Liberal-NDP rule in the Conservative base would give Harper carte blanche to do just about anything.

            I do not think Canadians are opposed to coalitions. They were opposed to a coalition (because it relied on the Bloc and would make Stephane Dion prime minister). They might be opposed to a Liberal-NDP coalition as well, if it could be shown that such a coalition would likely rely on the Bloc, but Tories should not count on that.

            That said, there are a few Liberals and NDP'ers that would defect to the Conservative party were a coalition clearly being considered. If you look at second choice preferences in the Ekos pre-election survey we are talking about 10-15% of Liberals and NDP'ers (NDP'ers were more likely to list the Conservatives as their second choice, possibly because cleavages in Canada are regional as well as ideological).

            I think the key question with the success of an open coalition would be whether it employed strategic non-compete agreements (akin to the May-Dion agreement). If so, it would free up considerable resources for the NDP and Liberals, while vastly improving their electoral efficiency. Moreover, the Liberals and NDP could coordinate their advertising and spend twice as much as the Conservatives (due to the 20 million dollar ceiling on election spending). I could definitely see an open coalition working under those conditions. In a looser form, I would be more inclined to predict a Conservative victory.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "A coalition would not force Harper to swing to the right. Politics abhors a vacuum. Opening up the issue-space in the centre by creating a coalition would enable Harper to occupy that hallowed political turf. The sheer fear of Liberal-NDP rule in the Conservative base would give Harper carte blanche to do just about anything. "

            What vacuum? A Lib-Dip coalition would go from centre to Left (which happens to be where more of the electorate sits). And you must not have been paying attention to Harper's coalition rebuttals. He will most certainly swing right. He will have to in order to paint the Libs as "socialist lovers." It will be ugly and it will most certainly backfire on him.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          Don't listen to Reid. The Libs and Dippers have nothing to be ashamed of in their pursuit of a coalition. Canadians want an alternative to the status quo. Running jointly on a campaign that frames Harper as the Righwing leader who pays no respect to our democratic institutions and laws would rally much support across the land.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

        Agreed that they need to disclose that they are open to a coalition before the election…but they can't pre-arrange it without it being essentially a merger. I can't imagine they would commit in advance to a coalition and then want to have both Liberals and NDP run a full slate of candidates.

        • PolJunkie

          That wouldn't be my preference but they most certainly could.

          The Brit election went along those lines. It was made clear to the Brits that should they return a hung parliament, the parties would enter coalition talks. None of it came as a surprise the week following the election.

          All the Libs and Dips have to agree to is talks the morning after the elections when they will all get a clear sense of who would be in Cabinet.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            But it wasn't made clear which parties would be in the coalition. Germany is a slightly better example, because the parties identify their likely coaltion partners during the election campaign.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            So?

          • Style

            So, it wasn't a pre-arranged coalition, which is the premise of john g's comment, which you then answered by saying that the Brits had a pre-arranged coalition.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            That's just semantics. The bottom line was that there was an understanding among all concerned (politicians, media and voters) that a hung parliament would bring parties together under a coalition agreement.

            The same ought to be done here. It's simple really. The Libs and Dips say that the status quo is having lasting consequences on the country (dysfunctional Parliament, critical issues left unadressed) and that they both will consider all options once voters render their decision.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            Okay. I think Scott Reid is pretty comfortable with that sort of "consider all options" wording, although he'd probably add his point about remaining true to the Liberal party's proud traditions.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            No he's not. I don't buy that for one second.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

            "Post-electoral coalitions of a formal and informal nature have populated minority parliaments frequently over the past century and Liberals have often taken part. Consideration of such coalitions should definitely be maintained in future. "

            Sounds pretty comfortable considering coalitions after the election?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Just because he said so in an OpEd doesn't make it true. I don't believe him.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

      But if you read the rest of his column, his "pre-election coalition" is a merger, with one joint candidate per riding. Which isn't what European parties do, obviously. I don't know why Reid is so uncomfortable with a possible coalition that he's decided to set up this straw man of a merger. He doesn't even seem comfortable saying there could be coalition talks after the election – he's more comfortable with "we'll work with other parties to make parliament effective".

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        Reid's personal fate is now tied to Ignatieff. Need I say more?

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

          If he can recover from advising Martin, he should be able to recover from any association.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Who said he recovered?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    I like where he pretends the New Democrats are trying to con the Liberals into combining the two parties. Aside from being untrue, it's particulalry charming given the number of times he, and other senior Liberal strategists, have tried to con New Democratic voters into "strategically" voting Liberal…

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      The idea that "if you want NDP ideas implemented, you should vote for the Liberals!" has always made me chuckle.

    • hosertohoosier

      Don't you see. It is the duty of all left-leaning Canadians to ensure that Canada is governed by a party with a leftish-sounding name. We'll govern pretty much the same as the Tories would, but by God we promise you we won't like it!

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    "The Liberals need to persist, not panic. To remember their history, not fear the future. The Liberal Party of Canada is the most successful political institution in the Western world. It has governed and shaped Canada into the country it is today. From medicare to public pensions to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Those who would sacrifice that legacy with so little spirit should be greeted with skepticism. Or worse."

    The thing that Reid needs to understand is that very few Canadians view the LPC as such these days. In fact, the LPC is running on the fumes of their past success. We've seen nothing of value from them in ages (except for the Green Shift but they themselves canned the idea). Only the hardcore LPC Kool-Aid drinkers buy into this philosophy.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

      Agreed. That's what strikes me the most. He says, rightfully, from health care to pensions to the Charter. The Charter was almost 30 years ago, and derived from the visions and ideals Trudeau was speaking of in the sixties. They get credit for it all, but the lack of a compelling vision or narrative for 30 years is a big part of the problem the party faces.

      • Out There

        It's worse than that. Any attempt to produce a compelling vision or narrative will be overwhelmed by a Conservative buzz bomb of attack ads that distort the Liberals' position into something that seems much more negative. (Hence, the "Green Shift" was transformed into a "Carbon Tax! Tax Evil! Tax Bad!") This takes advantage of the fact that an attack only needs to sound plausible; it doesn't have to be true.

        The Liberals will not only need to develop a compelling vision or narrative: they also need to accumulate an enormous war chest to counter the inevitable Conservative attack bombs with equivalent bombing of their own. (Either that or lobby for a ban on attack ads between election campaigns.) And they also have to have enough time and resources available to deal with the current government's attempts to circumvent Parliament, and the NDP's attempts to supplant them as the effective opposition.

        I'm not a fan of Ignatieff, and I'm not especially impressed with the Liberals these days, but wow, that's a tough set of tasks.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

          Umm…how is this different from how politics is practiced anywhere in the free democratic world? This is a challenge that every opposition political party in the democratic world with potential to form a government has to deal with. The Conservatives and their various incarnations have faced the exact same problem in every election since 1993.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/WDM WDM

          All that is true, however, they are still lacking on the vision front. The Green Shift came close, but like you said it underwent a bombardment and they shrunk from it (additionally M. Dion was a poor salesman, and they announced they'd be announcing a green shift while in Opposition which handed the issue to the Tories for a few weeks before the Liberals actually explained what it was). They've come out on a few issues; limiting their use of prorogation, national food strategy, broadband for all, and that's all fine, but where's the link? What does one thing have to do with the other. Even if there isn't a natural link, you need to create the impression there's one. The Conservatives have become the "Tim Hortons" crew, and they've done it by linking things like crime bills, tax cuts, credits for kids sports equipment, accountability etc, into their targeted middle class voting block

          • PolJunkie

            I disagree on the Green Shift. What sunk the policy wasn't the Tory's idiotic Oily the Splot. What sunk the policy was the fact that Dion was left all alone to promote and defend it. His own caucus was busy sabotaging the policy on every front. Dion had the endorsement of more than 200 senior economists, not to mention the fact that some provinces out West and East already had a similar model.

            It had all the ingredients needed to succeed except the support of the Liberals.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

        Was it John Manley who was calling for new blood in the party? His observation is probably more salient now than it was when he first said it.

        History is important, but so is someone who can convert that history into a sound strategic plan for the future.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

        I don't see a compelling vision from any of the parties. I saw a clip from a speech a few months ago. It was David Lewis in 1972 – Layton's speeches are just about exactly the same

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    The facts are simple. The LPC base isn't big enough to surmout the CPC base of support in an election. Worse yet, the LPC base keeps shrinking. Teaming up with the NDP is the ONLY possible way to get back into power. The math on this one cannot be denied.

    Once in power, the LPC will be given an appropriate platform to prove to Canadians that they still are the party that Reid raves about. They will NEVER be able to do this while in opposition.

    This is a new era. Get with the program or resign yourself to wallow in Opposition for a mighty long time.

  • Mark R

    The damage is likely already done. Rightly or wrongly the CPC will make sure they are running against a coalition NDP/LIB party. Whenever Jack Layton says lets increase taxes, this will get hung on Ignatieff as his coaltiion allie.

  • Sean

    From Reid's piece:

    "And among the obstacles to defeating the Conservatives is some 25 per cent of popular support held between the NDP and Greens. There should be impatience, urgency and attention dedicated to remedying this circumstance."

    I guess it's hard to argue against, that the Liberals might do better if the other opposition parties didn't exist.

    This sounds more like pouting victimhood than a call to connect with the people via policy and personalities they can support.

    If the Libs are simply waiting for Canadians to come back to their senses and reinstall the self-assumed natural governing party – mainly because they assume they are the natural governing party – they'll find themselves waiting a long time.

    • Out There

      I think that the Green Party is, unwittingly, a cause of many of the Liberals' problems. The Greens tend to attract idealists and visionaries – some of whom, in days past, would have joined forces with the Liberals. And it's not as if the Greens are taking votes away from the Conservatives; many Conservatives don't think that humans can even affect the climate.

      A merger between the Liberals and NDP is not feasible; the two parties are too far apart. But a merger between the Liberals and Greens might be possible, especially if the effects of the BP spill make environmental concerns more of an issue for more Canadians.

      • Dave

        What are Greens?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        "A merger between the Liberals and NDP is not feasible; the two parties are too far apart."

        No they are not. Jack Layton is the most pragmatic leader out there. The NDP will be ready to compromise on many fronts in exchange for such a deal. They may portray a very left position but that's what you do when you don't have the responsibility of power.

        If the PC and the CRAPP were able to find common ground, so can the Libs and the NDP. The difference between the two is that this deal would not involve a merger.

        • http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

          Jack Layton has run four consecutive elections focused primarily against Liberals. The overhwelming majority of NDP gains have been in Liberal-held ridings. Outside of a few BC and Saskatchewan ridings, NDPers hold no chance whatsoever of defeating an incumbent Tory in this country. Jack Lyaton killed Childcare. Jack Layton was willing to form an Opposition coalition with Stephen Harper.

          Yes Jack Layton is the most pragamtic leader out there, but only when it comes to furthering his personal interests rather than seeing any of the policies he purports to care about actually achieved.

          CRAP did not find common ground with the PCs until they kicked the PCs into a ditch, beat them bloody, and offered them an olive branch just ahead of rigor mortis setting in.

          The Conservative Party didn't merge, so much as its weaker partner was swallowed whole..

          The Liberals would be wise to do the same to the NDP.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

            What makes you think the NDP is willing to be swallowed whole?

            The NDP's been okay with existing as a third or fourth party for its entire existence, in order to be "real social democrats." The old PCs had no such mission statement to uphold a particular, unique political view. They had nothing to lose in the long term; the NDP has everything to lose.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      "If the Libs are simply waiting for Canadians to come back to their senses and reinstall the self-assumed natural governing party – mainly because they assume they are the natural governing party – they'll find themselves waiting a long time."

      I couldn't agree more.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      The far right was orphaned when the PCs and CCRA merged. They are still members, but their party isn't acting in their interests except on trivial red meat issues. The CPC retains these votes because as ambivalent these voters might be about the centre-right governance of the CPC, they are terrified of more mushy-middle centre-left rule from the Liberals. The Conservatives can only muster their 'base' because there is not right wing alternative. It's really only a matter of time before this wing either tires of the moderate policies of the CPC and leaves or hijacks the party leadership and veers it to the right. Strikes me that the Wildrose movement is the beginnings of this, but it might take another half decade to boil up onto the federal scene.

      So, the existence of three left-wing parties certainly contributes to the lack of 'captured lefties' that have no alternative but to vote for the centre-left party. The Liberals could win in the '90s despite this because the centre-right faced the same problem, and had credibility issues besides. So our choices are a takeover of some of all of the left parties into the Liberals and a return to a two party system, or electoral reform that leads to less perverse outcomes. My preferred solution to the split on the right was electoral reform (preferential voting), I'd rather we still had a principled Reform Party in Parliament–they did a lot of good by providing cover for the Libs to implement fiscally conservative policies. It's ironic that a merger of the conservative parties silenced the conservative voice in our politics.

  • Boogard

    "Scott Reid, the former aide to Paul Martin" – isn't he currently an aide to Micheal Ignatieff?

    When the Liberals move left, they tank in the polls. They've been hijacked by atheist fundamentalists and militant abortionists, that's their problem. Tell the lunatic fringe to take a hike very publicly and support will return. Why am I giving this free advice to Liberals? Because someday they will return to power, and I'd rather see a mature, serious Liberal party than a party of extremist zealots running things.

    I've noticed a slight shift among erstwhile anti-Christ Liberals who are beginning to understand that running on an anti-religion platform in a country where 90% of Canadians self-identify as religious (a number that will only increase due to immigration) isn't the genius move that Frank Graves claims it is. Iggy should loudly denounce Graves and the rest of the radicals who are the primary cause of the Liberals freefall.

    • Bob

      That was a pointless tangent. Go back to Church.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Why was it pointless? Don't understand the need by some on here to censor people with whom they disagree. Numerous posters are making all kinds of tangents here, yet you seem to target the one who you want to "go back to church." Interesting.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

        Actually your comment was 10x as pointless. And 100x as offensive. If you don't have anything constructive to add, don't say anything at all.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

      When the conservatives move right, they inflame the public conscience. They've been hijacked by antisocial fundamentalists and militant antistatists, that's their problem. Tell the lunatic fringe to take a hike very publicly and support will return. Why am I giving this free advice to Conservatives? Because someday they may get their majority, and I'd rather see a mature, serious Conservative party than a party of extremist zealots running things.

      I've noticed a slight shift among erstwhile regressive Conservatives who are beginning to understand that running on a socially conservative platform in a country where 60% of Canadians live in urban centers of 50000+ population (a number that will only increase due to immigration) isn't the broad grassroots representation that Charles McVety likes to think it is. Steve should loudly denounce McVety and the rest of the radicals who are the primary cause of the Conservatives' concrete ceiling.

      Hey, that was fun!

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        and almost the very definition of reactionary — sentence for sentence.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      They've been hijacked by atheist fundamentalists and militant abortionists, that's their problem.

      That's an interesting position to take, considering it's just patently false. If they're so hijacked, why is it that they're in no way taking on the constitutional language of "under God", or alternately, can't even manage to whip a vote encouraging maternal health initiatives that include funding for abortion?

      "anti-Christ Liberals"

      …There are satanic Liberals?

      Also, I don't think Graves has ever suggested running against Christianity. He may be a lot of things, but a "radical", in the truest sense of the word, is not one of them.

    • http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

      "- isn't he currently an aide to Micheal Ignatieff?"

      No. He isn't.

  • LiveBloggin Junkie

    Didn't Joe Clark make the exact same arguements about the Progressive Conservatives?

  • KOL

    I care more about the future of my country than the past of my political party.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      I have to wonder how like you are out there in Liberal land…

  • Wascally Wabbit

    Interesting! Mr. Reid – who has only recently been able to slide his feet back under the Liberal table after being a disaster as a communications director for Paul Martin's regime (who can forget the popcorn and beans analogy) – forgets the number one rule of spin – control the message before the other guy does.
    He has seen what happened when the limited communications skills of Mr. Dion and Mr. Layton permitted the leader of another party – WHO WAS NOT PART OF THE COALITION) to appear in the photo op – gave the messaging to Mr. Harper on a plate.
    So – he and Mr. Apps think that bamboozling the Canadian public before the election and having a totally different message after the election is going to win the public's confidence that these folks can be trusted – at a time when the stock of ALL politicians is way down – is beyond me!
    Get a new career Mr. Reid – because your current message is about as convincing as Robin Sear's messaging that there was a great conspiracy directed at his client Mr. Mulroney!

    • Wascally Wabbit

      That should of course read popcorn and beer

    • hosertohoosier

      Now now, look at the coalition photo op picture. The symbolism is clear – Jack Layton and Stephane Dion look like good friends, while Gilles Duceppe holds his hand out. Liberal and NDP coalition, with the Bloc getting a payoff. http://writtenonthebody.files.wordpress.com/2008/…

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

        LOL. Too true. One can only imagine the largesse that Duceppe would have been able to secure for his province as a condition of propping up the Dion coalition.

        • The Real Jan

          He's doing fairly well under Harper.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

            Completely agree, but I imagine he would have done even better in the coalition scenario.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        Yeah… that line is sure to secure Harper's seats in Quebec. Keep it up.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      It's worse than that. People like Reid will do everything in their power to sabotage any push towards a coalition even at the expense of their own party. More importantly, Ignatieff takes his advice from the likes of him.

      This will not work if Ignatieff goes on the campaign trail denying that a coalition is in the cards.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    I have to say, I'm quite surprised at all this talk of cooperation on the left. The mood seems far more agreeable than when the right started discussing alternatives after the 2003 election. For one thing, it's a lot easier said than done, which makes me wonder if this just isn't an attempt to undermine Ignatieff's current leadership. Also, I wonder what Harper thinks of all this. Would it constitute a serious threat, or a mad rush to leftist oblivion that he'll enjoy watching? Should be interesting.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    I think Scott Reid has it right. If his former boss had taken this advice, instead of leading the party too far to the left, we might still have a Liberal government today. The Liberal Party is successful because it has been a party of the centre. When it veers to the left, it lets the conservatives move into the vacuum.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

    Correct me if I'm wrong (and I suspect I am :), but isn't any pre-election discussion of a coalition kinda moot? If an election was held and the Conservatives won a plurality of seats again, wouldn't they, as the sitting government, be given the first chance at governing? The only way for a coalition to "work" in that regard would be to vote non-confidence immediately right? I can't imagine manoeuvering like that would rewarded come the next election (yes, I understand that it's completely legal, but outside of the Conservatives doing something odious like killing the per vote subsidy, there will be legitimacy issues)

    If on the other hand, the Liberals win a plurality, a coalition need not be explicit.

    Am I missing something?

    • John D

      Well, they could discuss it during an election under the banner of "Come on, you know they are going to do something odious within a month of the election"

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      I think you are missing something. You're of the belief that the party with the most seats gets first crack at government. But I don't think it works that way. It's up to Parliamentarians to present a government to the GG, and for her or him to accept it. So, if a coalition of Liberals and NDP is presented to her, and she believes it to be more stable than a Conservative minority, then that's who gets first crack. No?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

        Not exactly – I don't think it's the party with the most seats that gets the first crack; I think the last governing party gets first crack (in a minority situation). Which is why the Lib-Dem & Labour coalition was a possibility.

        I *think* that if the Liberals were to win a plurality and the Conservatives were able to show a coalition with the NDP, then the GG would give the Conservative-NDP gov't first crack.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

          Your understanding is the same as mine.

  • Gone Fishing

    The NDP are not centre-left, they are LEFT, period. Which makes them socialists, period. The Liberals have moved from a centre party to a centre-left party, which probably makes them progressive socialist's.

    Hey Greece, Spain, UK, etc, etc, etc, hows that progressive socialist commie crap working for ya, how's your economy coming along?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

    Curse you, Aaron. I just realised what song you took that title from, and now it's stuck in my head. Tarnation.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

      Rihanna went over our collective heads, which shows our demographic. :p

    • http://www.pomopoli.blogspot.com Zamprelli

      Style, I do in fact like your comment, but I will start "liking" everything you write to boost your score back up. I'm guessing you ran into the the Steyn-bots' wrath as well. Animals. Feel free to reciprocate.

  • Craig O

    While the Liberals and NDP share a number of general positions, once down to the details, there's a wide divide. This is why true talks of a coalition before any election would be exceptionally counterproductive. Many Liberals don't want what the NDP has to offer in terms of policy, and I would say most NDPers don't want what the Liberals are offering. Those parties saying they would form a coalition would likely drive voters away from both parties.

    What they could do is present that they'd be willing to work with each other in the event of a minority situation, while keeping clear their differences. All parties do this in more general terms – even the Conservatives say they're willing to work with the other parties and in some rare situations, have. What the Liberals and NDP need to do in the next election is to not rule out a coalition. They can say they don't want one, but they need to be very careful about ruling one out, because it's looking increasingly as though the only way to push forward with the aspects of their platforms there is some agreement upon is to work together on some level.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      "Those parties saying they would form a coalition would likely drive voters away from both parties."

      Drive them where, Craig?

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

        To the Green Party, in some instances.

      • Craig O

        Everyone's got their own preferences, but I would suspect the Greens from NDP and certain Liberal groups, and possibly the Conservatives from more business-friendly or right-leaning Liberals.

        Or, they'd just stay home.

        I'm not affiliate with any party, but being a voter who typically goes Liberal, I can say that an Liberal party that looks too much like the current NDP is not going to get my vote. Again, it's the difference between running while open to a coalition, and running as a coalition from the start. In one case, I'll be voting for a party whose positions I support, but that is willing to make compromises with others to get things done. In the other, I'd be voting for a party who is in a one-election de facto merger with a party I don't support, with a little vote-splitting thrown in, one that would likely have many more positions that I don't support.

        At the end of the day, things might end up the same, but there are differences between those two parties which are not at all trivial, and as a voter, I want to know that the party I vote for understands those differences and is on what I consider to be the right side of them. Put simply, I'm fine with coalition if necessary, but I'm not fine with necessarily coalition.

        • PolJunkie

          "At the end of the day, things might end up the same, but there are differences between those two parties which are not at all trivial, and as a voter, I want to know that the party I vote for understands those differences and is on what I consider to be the right side of them."

          Of course there are differences. Unsurmountable ones even. That's why we are talking about a coalition and not a merger. A coalition would allow both parties to preserve their differences while working together and running the country.

          That's how the rest of the free world does it. Why can't we?

          • Craig O

            Which is why I'm not saying the parties should rule out a coalition, but that they shouldn't run on one, or present one as inevitable, intended, or even likely beforehand. At that point, it basically becomes a merger, albeit a temporary one, with the downside of vote splitting, because a vote for one becomes for one or the other half of that pre-arranged coalition, not for the party itself.

            Coalition after the election is more than fine by me, compromise is a part of getting things done. But one before the election is not, because I don't agree with most NDP policies and don't want to vote for them. Like most voters, I will vote for the group (usually party), that best supports my views. An NDP-Liberal coalition platform would do that much worse than a pure Liberal platform, likely worse than a Green platform, and possibly even worse than a Conservative platform (even with Harper, who I despise, I would rather vote Conservative than NDP). From those I've talked to, quite a few NDP supporters are as antagonistic towards Liberal platforms as I am towards the NDP platform. That's why I think a pre-arranged coalition will not be helpful for either party.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "Coalition after the election is more than fine by me, compromise is a part of getting things done. But one before the election is not, because I don't agree with most NDP policies and don't want to vote for them."

            I don't understand that.

            If you look at our context, the likely scenario if there is to be a coalition is one between the Libs and the Dippers. If neither party rules it out or, better yet, explicitely say that such an arrangement would be one of the things on the table if voters return a minority parliament, the obvious conclusion is still a Lib/Dip coalition.

            It is a foregone conclusion that the Libs will not win the next election. That is the only reason why we are having this conversation. If a coalition is on the table prior to the vote, a coalition we will have after the vote.

            So you need to decide who you abhore most: another round of Harper and his crew or a lib/dip coalition?

          • Craig O

            It was a foregone conclusion that the Conservatives wouldn't win the '06 election either when it was first being discussed, but look how that turned out. I'm not prepared to write off the next election just yet, though I can't say I'm optimistic either.

            You seem to be missing my point – I'm not advocating they rule out a coalition, quite the opposite, they need to leave that option open. I am saying that they shouldn't run on the premise of one. A coalition can be on the table without being the main course. If it comes to a coalition after the fact, that's fine – it's part of representative democracy and I understand and respect that if the party that most closely represents my views cannot govern on their own, they will have to work with others. But, I'm not going to vote for a group that doesn't represent my views from the offset.

            You've presented a false choice. I don't need to vote between Harper and a Lib/NDP coalition. There are other parties, and I'd much rather vote for a straight Liberal platform. At least then I know if a coalition forms, my vote will go to the part of that coalition I support, distinct from the part that I don't.

          • AT1

            If they absolutely rule out a coalition, they can't legitimately form one! That was Dion's mistake (one of many). If you do what you categorically insist you will not….you can not rely on the support of the populace.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

    All Liberals and NDP need to say before an election is that, if there is another minority, they would consider all options including coalitions, confidence and supply agreements and a combination of the above.

    The Liberals should probably be honest and admit that they would also consider a coalition with the Conservatives if the Conservatives showed a sincere interest in sharing power.

    All three should admit that when it comes to votes in the House of Commons, that they are open to cooperating with the Bloc Quebecois on certain issues as they have in the past.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

      "The Liberals should probably be honest and admit that they would also consider a coalition with the Conservatives if the Conservatives showed a sincere interest in sharing power."

      Absolutely NOT! All combos are fine except for that one. The goal is to remove Harper from power, not keep him there.

      • John_Edgar

        I assume you mean your goal, I'm honestly confused by this sort of comment. Surely the goal should be to get the best government for the country?
        Of course if the Liberals would absolutely rule out a coalition with the Conservatives they should say so during the election. But then (very naively) I would hope all the parties would just be honest about which other parties they would be willing to enter into a coalition with. And anyone who doesn't think that (not directed to you PolJunkie) is essentially in favour of lying during the campaign.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          "Surely the goal should be to get the best government for the country?"

          Without a doubt! And that govt is not that of Harper.

          "I assume you mean your goal, I'm honestly confused by this sort of comment"

          Not just my goal. The goal of those who are talking about joining with the NDP. Have you heard anyone propose a coalition with Harper? Because I haven't.

          "But then (very naively) I would hope all the parties would just be honest about which other parties they would be willing to enter into a coalition with."

          That goes without saying.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            Not just my goal. The goal of those who are talking about joining with the NDP. Have you heard anyone propose a coalition with Harper? Because I haven't.

            This guy has. Albeit somewhat facetiously.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            As you said…facetiously.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            Hey man, you didn't put any conditions on your question (chuckles.)

            I think pigs will fly sooner than Harper and Ignatieff play nice in the sandbox together.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

            No I'd be really surprised if the Liberals or NDP proposed a coalition with Harper, just trying to cover all the bases. I don't want to derail the discussion but clearly not everyone agrees that the best (at least the best of the options on offer) government "isn't that of Harper". Obviously that's opinion not fact, even if you think the Harper government is bad you can't prove that anything else would be better :).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            Sure it's my opinion. I'm not sure I understand your point.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/John_Edgar John_Edgar

            I think we are slightly at cross- purposes, I was just a bit confused by your the phrase "the goal", which sounded to me as if it was a general statement (but clearly wasn't meant to be). Probably because I'm thinking more about coalitions in general rather than "NDP-Liberal coalition to get rid of Harper" in particular.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

            An objective view of the polls (is Canada going in the right direction?, etc.) would suggest that most Canadians, as opposed to leftist activists, are actually not all that unhappy with the present government and would in fact be quite comfortable with a Liberal/Conservative coalition.

            John Edgar is probably closer to being correct. Most Canadians don't see "getting rid of Harper" as their main goal, but, rather, are looking for the best government for the country. And according to many polls many Canadians see Harper as better than the alternatives. That may not mean he is universally liked, but it does mean he is tolerated more than the others as the PM.

            Liberals and others will never get back to power until they get over their obsession with hating Harper and realize that Canadians are looking for good government, not getting back at someone's political enemy.

          • Orson Bean

            Exactly. There is a huge chasm between the view of Harper that most hard-core LPC and NDP partisans have, and the view that most ordinary, apolitical, outside-the-Ottawa-bubble Canadians have. Most Canadians do not see him as the Antichrist, do not have Stephen Harper dartboards, etc.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

        Then you're talking about a merger.

        I'm saying they should admit that we have an unwritten and angry Liberal-Conservative pact now, and that an actual agreement would be better.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

          "Then you're talking about a merger."

          No I'm not.

          "I'm saying they should admit that we have an unwritten and angry Liberal-Conservative pact now, and that an actual agreement would be better."

          Who is "we?" Did I miss the coverage on this one? I've heard the Dip and lib leaders talking about joining together but I must have missed the part about teaming up with the Reformers.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

      Based on the current con govt., no party should trust them to keep their word.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Conservative government elected on a platform that consisted of five main priorities, and did they not enact most of it?

        I agree that most politicians end up being cynical in power. That's certainly the case with Obama, too. But I don't agree that they're all the same. McGuinty's power-obtaining platform was virtually thrown out the window the second he got into office. He specifically ran on an issue, then rather spectacularly backtracked the first chance he got. Harper didn't do that, nor did others.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

          I'm not talking ab out McGuinty. I don't live in Ontario. I'm talking about Harper. Didn't he run on transprancy and accountability. What more can I say.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            He specifically ran on passing the Accountability Act, which was one of the five main priorities, and he did.

            I also find it curious that a government is constantly accused of being unaccountable when it is subject to the whims of a majority opposition. At any time, this Parliament can subject Harper to the most obvious examples of government accountability — an election. Instead, they choose to yell and scream accusation after accusation from across the aisle.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            Yup, they ran on a platform of five key priorities. Yup, they took action on four of those five. They also:

            - Flipped on income trusts;
            - Broke their own fixed election date law;
            - Interfered in ATI requests;
            - Spent more money than Liberals ever have;
            - Deliberately and consciously interfered with the right of committees to summon witnesses.

            Among others. Now, I'm not going to debate whether or not these things had to be done, but if we're going on "promise made, promise kept" as a signal of trustworthiness, let's look at all the information, as we would for Trudeau (Constitution yay!, NEP Boo…) or any other PM.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            No government will keep all their promises. The Tories ran on a major platform, and passed most of it intact. Didn't they?

            Furthermore, they have not been rocked by a major scandal, despite opposition efforts to paint every single development as such.

            They promised clean government and, for the most part, that's what they got. Cleaner than the Mulroney and Chretien governments, at least so far.

            I just think that conservatives tend to be held to different and often unreasonable standards. Maybe it comes with the territory. Maybe when you expect responsibility from citizens, people expect more from you. I'm not sure.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            Furthermore, they have not been rocked by a major scandal, despite opposition efforts to paint every single development as such.

            No, just a hundred little ones, each one demonstrating an inability of the parties involved to keep their thoughts to themselves when it really counts.

            One can make the argument that the Conservatives are being held to a higher standard because that's the bar that they set for themselves, so the media, and critics, are attempting to hold them to that standard. One could also argue that the rapid expansion of social networking and use of online media for news dissemination has provided more opportunity to take the government to task.

            At the end of the day, though, when you claim the moral high ground, you have to be able to stand on it. And by their actions, particularly of late, the Conservatives are not doing the best job of it.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            No, just a hundred little ones, each one demonstrating an inability of the parties involved to keep their thoughts to themselves when it really counts.

            Don't quite understand that one. An accusation is not a scandal, btw.

            I agree that this Conservative government set the bar high, or maybe the previous Liberal government set the bar so low, but I still think there's somewhat of an unfair double standard.

            It's as though the speck in their eyes is tantamount to the beam in one's own.

            And, are not the current opposition parties setting a bar so high that they won't be able to meet their own standards, too?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

            I'm sort of inclined to believe that the opposition parties are setting the bar pretty low (for themselves).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

            Really. So then you're admitting that the Liberals would not abide by the standards they're currently placing on the Conservatives? That it's, as I suggested, mostly sensationalistic talk?

        • Matlock

          But how did those promises turn out?

          Cleaning up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act
          -Done, although given the government's poor performance since on processing ATI requests (as per the ATI commissioner's report) and frequent undermining of Kevin Page, one could argue they have not lived up to the spirit of the law they passed.

          Cutting the GST
          -Done, although the general consensus among economists is that an income tax cut would have been the better pro-investment strategy.

          Cracking down on crime
          -Few bills actually passed (twice restarted due to two prorogations), and the government has provided no research to suggest that these policies could reduce crime rates. (The existing criminology literature suggests the same).

          Increasing financial assistance for parents
          -Done. (Personally, between this or a national daycare policy, I think this to be the better policy).

          Working with the provinces to establish a wait-times guarantee for patients
          -What actually got implemented is much weaker than what was promised during the election. http://canadaonline.about.com/od/healthcarewaitti…

          I would agree that Harper did not backtrack to the same extent that McGuinty did, but at the same time what got implemented was not necessarily what he promised, nor was it necessarily good policy.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I don't think that McGuinty and Harper are even in the same ballpark. McGuinty's major campaign promise was to not raise taxes and to balance the budget. And, if he broke those, to have a referendum. He stood there and signed a pledge to do so. How did that work out?

            On the other hand, you're criticizing Harper for keeping promises like the GST.

            I don't think Harper is anywhere near perfect. But he's not nearly as bad as often depicted, in my opinion, and he's facing an extremely hostile opposition majority, who can throw him out at any time.

            Given those circumstances, I think he's done alright. Parliament isn't burning to the ground.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

    Anyone else notice how the Harperites are quick to pan this coalition idea?

    One has to wonder why they wouldn't applaud something they claim would be a terrible move for the Liberals, huh?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

      I think you should be careful in assuming that all right of centre voters are Harperites. There are many fiscal conservatives who are deeply disappointed at the Harper government and ready to go elsewhere. Look at Wild Rose Party for a provincial example or Reform in 1993. Moreover, I suspect that many social conservatives are also upset at Harper and would be willing to look at alternatives such as CHP.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

        "I think you should be careful in assuming that all right of centre voters are Harperites."

        You're the one with the assumptions. I said no such thing.

        • TwoYen

          OK, fair enough. You may not have been "assuming" that all right of centre voters are Harperites. But you leave the clear impression that you believe those posters who criticise the coalition are Harperites.

          There are some of us who believe in a two party system and would like nothing better than to see the Liberal Party revert to its former place as a centre of the road party. If that provides competition for the Conservative Party, then Canada will be a better democracy for it. It is my view that no one except pure right wing ideologues would like to see the Conservative Party in power forever if a viable alternative exists. The problem at the moment is that the Liberals are currently not viable as an alternative. Which is why I think Scott Reid is making some good points.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

            "OK, fair enough. You may not have been "assuming" that all right of centre voters are Harperites. But you leave the clear impression that you believe those posters who criticise the coalition are Harperites. "

            But… I don't and I didn't say anything of the sort.

    • Orson Bean

      PJ, I think you're making a huge mistake in assuming that CPC-Harperites secretly fear a coaliltion and that's why they're panning it. I think they're panning it because, given their view of the world, they quite honestly think that such a coalition would suck. These are right-of-centre people, so naturally they would think that any govt in which the NDP plays a significant role would suck.

      Personally, I think CPC partisans would love to run against a coalition, and believe that the more coalition talk there is, the better it is for them. It's proven to be generally unpopular in the polls, and it helps put the focus away from things that bother the CPC (Guergis, Afghan detainees, Mulroney-Schrieber, whatever).

      • AT1

        I agree with Orson. Running on a coalition is not likely to scare the cons. It is merely positioning prior to an election. Best part, they have quotes from Ignatief and others on the pros and cons of it. All those juicy quotes will be put to good use. There are an awful lot of right leaning leaning lib votes to be pulled away.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

    Cutting the GST…Done, although the general consensus among economists is that an income tax cut would have been the better pro-investment strategy.

    You mean the general consensus of the economists the media trotted out.

    There is not a doubt in my mind that there are lots of economists out there that would endorse a GST cut as good policy. But their opinions were, shall we say, narratively inconvenient.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

      Make all the jokes about economists you like (they predicted twelve of the last seven recessions, etc.) but many of them saw the recession of 2008 coming.

      This is how I had it explained to me when I attended one of those Economic Club thingies: In the face of a recession, people become rather cautious with their money, even with consuption tax reductions, because their confidence in the economy declines and they worry they won't have enough to get by. Based on this belief, a cut to the GST doesn't stimulate spending to the extent that it would, given more stable circumstances, and is therefore less beneficial than an income tax cut, for example, which increases the in-pocket income of individuals and gives them the freedom to spend (or the perception of freedom to spend, anyhow.)

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/john_g2708 john g

        Harper made a point in the election campaign that I've never heard a good rebuttal for. An income tax cut does not benefit the poorest of society because they already pay no income tax. They do pay GST however. That is the only tax cut the poor will ever feel.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

        but many of them saw the recession of 2008 coming

        Who in the world are you trying to kid? Establishment economists precisely did not foresee the financial collapse of 2008, or else steps could have been taken to prevent it. What world are you watching anyhow?

        • Matlock

          Dennis, I might never say this to you again, so let me take a moment to say totally agree with you on this one. Few (in the mainstream, anyways) saw the housing bubble, high oil prices or high personal debt levels causing a recession ahead of time.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

      Wasn't it a close Tory adviser — I can't remember which one — that later admitted that they knew that the GST rate cuts were not a great idea economically, but that it would be extremely popular with voters?

      Now, the reason I mention this is because it raises a comparison with what the Liberals and Conservatives did under similar circumstance. Both promised either lowering or scrapping the GST. Both probably thought it wasn't great policy.

      However, once in power, the Liberals decided to scrap their promise, while the Tories kept theirs.

      I remember Andrew Coyne discussing this on an At Issue panel once, and basically denounced both parties. But I see it differently. The Tories were not afraid to let voters decide. The Liberals were.

      In a sense, what the Liberals did I think is part of a larger trend, wherein a campaign is seen as a means to and end. More specifically, voters are seen as an obstacle to the greater good, rather than an essential element of it. Liberals know best, so if they circumvent the will of voters, that's OK. In the end, it's what the party in power things is best after elections that ultimately matters, at least according to this potentially disturbing trend.

      I think the 2009 coalition attempt is another example of this trend. Who cares what voters wanted, it's what leftists can achieve after an election that matters most. The left is often accused of being elitist and arrogant, and these developments tend to support that view, in my opinion.

    • The Real Jan

      Feel free to trot out some pro GST cut economists.

    • Matlock

      No, the general consensus among economists is indeed that an income tax cut would be a good pro-investment strategy. A GST cut would be a good pro-consumption strategy. Back in 2006 when the economy was humming along fine, it would have been good policy to stimulate investment, just as when the recession hit it was important to stimulate consumption.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    You know, I hate to correct Mr. Scott Reid — well, not really — but our country's history is not rife with post-election coalitions. In fact, we've had only one in our history, and that was during a world war.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/auntie_em_m auntie_em_m

    There have been provincial coalitions as well.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

    Pearson governed for 5 years, over 2 elections, only because legislative support from the NDP. While it may not have been a formal coalition, in that the NDP did not sit in cabinet, it was pretty darn close because the NDP (ie Tommy Douglas) had a lot of influence on government policy. In fact, this type of legislative agreement – just short of a coalition – is another possible avenue of post-election cooperation between parties in a minority situation. The Pearson/Douglas combo was productive too (universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, new national flag). Many people don't realize Pearson never had a majority.

  • Orson Bean

    Well, that depends on how you characterize the pact that Trudeau's Liberals made with David Lewis' NDP when Trudeau failed to win a majority in 1972.

  • Dan

    I read that article as saying, albeit a bit subtly, that Liberals shouldn't give up their "last days of an election campaign strategy guide". AKA… Try to convince center left voters that a vote for the NDP is really just a vote for Harper.

  • Anon 001

    Scott Reid, the Ezra Levant of the Liberal Party of Canada.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    None in my lifetime that I can remember. There was an "accord" between the Liberals and NDP in 1985 here in Ontario, but maybe a lot of people need to be reminded about how the prospects of a coalition were entertained back then:

    Rae and Peterson signed a "Liberal-NDP Accord" in which the NDP agreed to support a Liberal government in office for two years. The Liberals, in turn, agreed to implement some policies favoured by the NDP. Rae had personally supported a full coalition, but did not strongly argue this case with other members of his party. Peterson later indicated that he would not have accepted a coalition in any event.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae#1985_electio…

    Again, coalitions aren't nearly as common here in Canada as some like to pretend.

    Personally, given that it's obviously on the table, I think the Liberals and NDP might be wise to formally entertain conditions under which a coalition between them might prevail. But it probably won't happen, given their endorsement of the 2009 version that was such a bad mistake. That its supporters swear by it to this day must make Harper very secure about his future job prospects.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    Was there any formal agreement between the two parties back then? If not, then it's not dissimilar to the minority Parliaments that we've had since 2004, which ultimately involved some form of cooperation between the Liberals and Conservatives.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

    It wasn't a coalition.

  • Orson Bean

    Well, it wasn't and it sorta was. It was about as close as you can come to a coalition without being one, I guess. The NDP asked for some very specific (and in my view, mostly toxic) policies to be implemented (e.g., FIRA), and they all were implemented — much to Canada's detriment, IMO. I guess you're saying there has to be cabinet representation for something to be a coalition? On that test, I agree it wasn't.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/zamprelli4731 Zamprelli

    Agreed. Or like the Conservatives governing with Bloc or NDP support at times since 2006. The difference is that Pearson/Douglas was steady over a long period, so I don't know the degree of formality of the agreement, but clearly it stuck. When there's a minority, somebody somehow has to cooperate for anything to get done, be it a coalition, leg. agreement, or case by case support.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    The funny thing is that there's nothing particularly untoward about a coalition per se. What its supporters don't understand, or refuse to accept, is that the 2008 version they so enthusiastically endorsed was a very bad example of coalition building, and has cast a shadow on all potential coalition building for the foreseeable future. That they don't even see it as a mistake doesn't bode well either.

From Macleans