Harper on India

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, November 8, 2012 at 2:21 PM - 0 Comments

The Prime Minister considers the political situation in New Delhi.

Mr. Harper, who this week urged India in a speech to work harder and faster on trade deals, on Thursday said he realized New Delhi was proceeding as fast as it could. “Are we frustated? I am very clear we need to go farther and faster,” the prime minister told reporters in Bangalore after celebrating the opening of an IMAX cinema. “In my conversations with Indian leaders, they reflect exactly the same thing.”

He said Indian politicians share his concern but are hamstrung by a coalition government and the need to win approval from partners. “What we do have to realize when we deal with India as opposed to some other countries we’re dealing with in the developing word: this country is a democracy,” the prime minister said. “And that means governments cannot simply dictate a whole set of policy changes to happen the next day. That means governments must develop public consensus behind policy change.”

Trudeau not for merging

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, October 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM - 0 Comments

Justin Trudeau apparently isn’t interested in a merger with the NDP.

Earlier in Burlington, Trudeau told reporters, if he becomes leader, he would not entertain a merger with the NDP so the left could be united against the Conservative government. “I don’t think that’s an interesting idea,” he said.

Despite some support for the idea from Chretien, Trudeau said, “I want to be leader of the Liberal party, not some sort of hybrid, semi-ideological formation.”

His father offered cabinet seats to Ed Broadbent in 1980 and speculated a little about the ramifications in his memoirs.

To 2015 and beyond

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM - 0 Comments

Greg Fingas catches the apparent arrival of nuance to Thomas Mulcair’s views on coalition government. Last month, a possible coalition with Liberals was categorically out of the question. Yesterday, in an interview with CTV’s Question Period, Mr. Mulcair committed only to fielding 338 candidates and running to form a majority government. “Anything beyond that,” he said, “is pure speculation.”

Until Mr. Mulcair is asked again directly about his position and whether it has changed, it is likely too early to say to what degree his mind remains open to the possibility of a coalition, but Greg considers the ramifications.

In effect, merely in recognizing that any talk of a post-election coalition will depend on the circumstances at the time, Mulcair is taking a more cooperative line than the leaders of the Official Opposition in the previous two elections. Which means that the NDP will preserve at least some of its hard-earned reputation as the party most willing to work pragmatically toward progressive goals.

Mind you, the statement that we’ll need to see what happens doesn’t serve as quite the strong defence of cooperation that I’d most like to see. But it does open the door for a neat contrast against Libs past and present – allowing Mulcair to say he’ll consider working with the Libs and others toward common goals, while highlighting just what those goals are for the NDP. And if the Cons decide to follow up with another bizarre anti-cooperation crusade that pushes Mulcair to make stronger statements about the importance of working together rather than being as insular and narrowly-focused as Harper and company, then the result for the NDP figures to be all the better.

Where does Thomas Mulcair stand?

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 19, 2012 at 12:33 PM - 0 Comments

Mr. Mulcair has talked about the need to “renew” and “modernize” the NDP, but much of what he has had to say about said change has involved nothing more than the party’s rhetoric and what he has proposed in terms of policy seems uncontroversial in the NDP context.

So where might Mr. Mulcair represent potential differences? Let’s throw out a few possible points of interest.

Continue…

‘End of story’

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 12, 2012 at 10:00 AM - 0 Comments

Thomas Mulcair rules out any kind of coalition with Liberals.

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.

The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

Greg Fingas considers the leadership ballot ramifications.

Topp on winning

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM - 0 Comments

Brian Topp has released a policy paper on building the party, including calls to expand the party’s outreach and fundraising efforts, launch a policy review and commit to working with other parties after the 2015 election.

There are, as Jack Layton used to say, many tools in the toolbox to do this – cooperation case-by-case and bill-by-bill; a budget accord on the model of the 2005 “NDP budget”; a governing accord in the style of the 1985 Peterson-Rae accord; or a coalition government, in the style of the coalitions that govern most of the democratic world. By talking early and often about these options, we will counteract the nonsense the Conservatives say about them; moreover, we will ensure that Canadians know that in the NDP, they have the party that is always prepared to work with others in the House of Commons to get things done –including the central task of ridding Canada of the Harper government.

This is why we can’t have cooperative things

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM - 35 Comments

Chris Selley blames Stephane Dion for the continued toxicity of coalition governance.

Coalition-demonizers like Stephen Harper tend to take more heat in the media than coalition-boosters like Mr. Dion. And the demonizers deserve what they get. It’s appalling that Canadian politicians and their supporters, who know perfectly well how Parliament works and would happily support a coalition if it favoured their side, will go around talking of coups d’état, pretending as if Canadian voters directly elect their governments…

That said, Mr. Dion and his backers did plenty of harm themselves. His coalition was hamstrung by the explicit support of the Bloc Québécois, but its even more fundamental problem was that Mr. Dion had promised not to form a coalition. This isn’t a minor policy flip-flop. We’re talking about someone promising never to become prime minister under certain circumstances, and then reneging. A promise is not nullified because it would have been awkward not to make it.

Welcome to the club

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, September 13, 2011 at 10:58 AM - 30 Comments

The Conservatives formally initiate Brian Topp with a leaked memo of partisan attacks.

“Topp is a union boss and has deep union ties,” they say in a memo to MPs and party faithful. “How could Brian Topp speak on behalf of all Canadians, when he is so tied to big union special interests…

“Topp is not just the candidate of union bosses but also NDP insiders,” the Tories say, noting that he worked for former Saskatchewan premier Roy Romanow, former left-wing Toronto mayor David Miller and former NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin.

And if that does make Tories shake in their boots, the party back-roomers add that “Brian Topp is most notable for being NDP Leader’s hand-picked negotiator in the coalition talks with the separatist Bloc Québécois … Brian Topp will do anything – including forming a wreckless [sic] coalition with separatists – in order to gain power.”

Via Twitter, Brian Topp pronounces himself honoured.

Is it safe to talk about a coalition?

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, August 31, 2011 at 10:52 AM - 15 Comments

Chris Selley says the New Democrats and Liberals should talk about a coalition before they talk about a merger.

… there’s very little standing in the way of such an arrangement except a little bit of leadership — legitimate coalitions cannot come from elections in which they’ve been explicitly disavowed — and, of course, an election result that makes it possible.

Both parties have much to do, if they’re to achieve such an outcome. But there’s no reason to believe they can’t do it separately and co-operate later, and plenty to like about having more choice in political parties rather than less. It would be a shame if one big idea was discounted in pursuit of another.

If memory serves, Jack Layton’s stance in the last election was that the NDP would work with any party in the House of Commons. If that position holds, the onus would seem to be on the Liberals to take a similarly open-minded position.

'The Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM - 103 Comments

Former NDP MP Tony Martin looks back on his time in Ottawa.

I thought we had a real chance at a progressive government in the fall and winter of 2008-2009 – the coalition. For me, the lowlight was not being able to achieve that. I thought we had a chance to achieve a progressive government that would have allowed us to do a whole bunch of things, including working on the reduction of poverty. The government we have has no interest in doing anything about poverty. The lowlight was we didn’t achieve it and that the Liberals walked away from an opportunity to throw Harper out.

Two questions for Stephen Harper (III)

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 10:10 AM - 50 Comments

After interviewing Mr. Layton and Mr. Ignatieff, Peter Mansbridge will sit down with Mr. Harper on Thursday. Assuming that the parameters of our democracy might be a topic raised, here, again, are two questions for Mr. Harper.

1. Earlier in this campaign, you explained that when you referred to “options” in the your letter to the Governor General in September 2004, you hoped only that she would give you the opportunity to assure her that you were not intending to defeat the Liberal government. University of New Brunswick professor Don Desserud has quibbled with this understanding of convention, suggesting the only options for the Governor General would have been to call an election or ask the leader of the opposition, in this case you, if he had the opportunity to form a government. Do you believe the Governor General can compel the Prime Minister to work with the opposition parties or do you believe you were given poor advice in 2004?

2. In an essay penned with Tom Flanagan some years ago you spoke favourably of an “alliance” between regional parties and lamented for the “winner-take-all style of politics” in Canada. In 1997, during an interview with TVO, you said if the Liberal majority government of the day was ever reduced to a minority government, there would be an opportunity for one of the other parties “to form a coalition or working alliance with the others.” In 2004, during your news conference with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton, you were asked if you were prepared to form government and said such a scenario was “extremely hypothetical.” You and your party now argue that only the party that wins the most seats can form government. Why and when did your views change on the functioning of our parliamentary system?

Statement of the obvious

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 5:07 PM - 126 Comments

Michael Ignatieff reminds everyone how our democracy works.

If the governor general wants to call on other parties, or myself, for example, to try and form a government, then we try to form a government,” Ignatieff told CBC’s Peter Mansbridge in an exclusive interview Tuesday afternoon.

“That’s exactly how the rules work and what I’m trying to say to Canadians is, I understand the rules, I respect the rules, I will follow them to the letter and I’m not going to form a coalition. What I’m prepared to do is talk to Mr. Layton or Mr. Duceppe or even Mr. Harper and say, ‘We have an issue, and here’s the plan that I want to put before Parliament, this is the budget I would bring in,’ and then we take it from there.”

Harper's been pondering coalitions for longer than I thought

By John Geddes - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 4:38 PM - 43 Comments

How far back can we trace Stephen Harper’s intense interest in the possibility of coalition government?

Most likely you would answer that Harper’s been preoccupied with the idea since the fall 2008 bid by the Liberals and the NDP to form a coalition, backed by the Bloc Québécois, to supplant his minority.

Or perhaps you would speculate that he must have been pondering the coalition permutations and combinations back in late 2004. That’s when he signed that much-debated letter to the governor-general with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe, suggesting that one or more of their three parties might somehow govern—without an intervening election—if the Liberal minority of the day fell.

Even though Harper, Layton and Duceppe evidently had in mind some looser form of Parliamentary cooperation (Harper denies even that much), their discussions must have at least touched on the notion of a full coalition—if only for long enough to reject it.

But I’ve come across an old campaign-trail quote that suggests both those answers for the advent of Harper’s concern about coalitions are wrong. Continue…

Mansbridge v. Layton

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, April 19, 2011 at 10:57 AM - 27 Comments

The NDP leader talks to the CBC host.

Layton said “there’s no question” Harper’s goal in 2004 talks with his party and the Bloc Quebecois was to become prime minister. Harper has also denied that he was trying to topple the Martin government and seize power in 2004.

Layton told Mansbridge that Harper is “fabricating things here.” Layton said the Conservative leader, who was then the Leader of the Official Opposition, was the driving force for the “arrangement” with other opposition parties at the time. ”We were called together by Stephen Harper to send a letter to the governor general to make it clear that if Paul Martin was defeated by the speech from the throne, she should turn to the other parties to govern,” Layton told the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge on board his campaign bus near Charlottetown. ”There was no question about it that the ultimate goal here was for Stephen Harper to become prime minister.”

From the magazine

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 16, 2011 at 1:09 PM - 55 Comments

I spent last Sunday hanging around with Stephane Dion. Here is what that was like.

If you’re interested in a director’s cut, full of never-before-seen material, see below.

You can add this as a post-script to what I wrote the night of the 2008 election.

Continue…

This complicated democracy

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 15, 2011 at 1:35 PM - 36 Comments

Frances Woolley sets out to consider the efficiencies of vote-swapping and ends up considering the nature of our democracy.

The question is the wrong one to ask. If Party A wins three seats, then it can pursue policies that benefit people who do (or potentially might) vote for party A. If parties A, B and C win one seat each, they will pursue policies that benefit a different set of electors, not just those who vote for party A. But will a coalition government pursue policies that benefit a broader section of the electorate?

It’s not obvious. It all depends what happens at the coalition stage, when different parties are attempting to form governments. An interesting working paper by Amedeo Piolatto argues that, in certain circumstances, the power wielded by small parties in the coalition formation process can cause proportional representation systems to lead to political outcomes that are less representative of the interests of the broader population than first past the post type systems.

The Ontario accord

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, April 15, 2011 at 9:46 AM - 3 Comments

David Peterson and Bob Rae talk to The Mark about the Liberal-NDP accord in Ontario

How bout now?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM - 29 Comments

After this and this comes this new attempt to pin Canadians down on what they will and will not accept from their Parliament.

The party with the most seats forms the government and seeks support from other parties on a case-by-case basis. Acceptable 72% Unacceptable 12%

The party with the most seats enters into a coalition with another party in order to form a government. Acceptable 57% Unacceptable 27%

Two or more parties, none of which have the most seats individually, enter into a coalition in order to form a majority government. Acceptable 48% Unacceptable 33%

Of course, none of those options appear on anyone’s ballot. And these options don’t fully cover the options available to the parties in Parliament.

Vague notions

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 1:55 PM - 49 Comments

Fifty-four percent of Canadians prefer a Liberal-NDP coalition to a Conservative majority, but a plurality of Canadians feel uneasy about the idea of coalition government.

When you think about the idea of a coalition government in Canada do you have a positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or negative impression?

Positive 18%
Somewhat positive 22%
Somewhat negative 17%
Negative 32%
Unsure 12%

Two questions for Stephen Harper (II)

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, April 4, 2011 at 8:46 AM - 55 Comments

In light of what we saw and heard during the first week of the 41st general election, those two questions for Mr. Harper need to be updated.

1. Last week, you explained that when you referred to “options” in the your letter to the Governor General in September 2004, you hoped only that she would give you the opportunity to assure her that you were not intending to defeat the Liberal government. University of New Brunswick professor Don Desserud has quibbled with this understanding of convention, suggesting the only options would have been to call an election or ask the leader of the opposition, in this case you, if he had the opportunity to form a government. Do you believe the Governor General can compel the Prime Minister to work with the opposition parties or do you believe you were given poor advice in 2004?

2. In an essay penned with Tom Flanagan some years ago you spoke favourably of an “alliance” between regional parties and lamented for the “winner-take-all style of politics” in Canada. In 1997, during an interview with TVO, you said if the Liberal majority government of the day was ever reduced to a minority government, there would be an opportunity for one of the other parties “to form a coalition or working alliance with the others.” In 2004, during your news conference with Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton, you were asked if you were prepared to form government and said such a scenario was “extremely hypothetical.” You and your party now argue that only the party that wins the most seats can form government. Why and when did your views change on the functioning of our parliamentary system?

Options that don't appear on the ballot

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, April 2, 2011 at 9:59 AM - 109 Comments

Ipsos Reid asks Canadians to choose between a Liberal-NDP coalition and a Conservative majority.

A new Ipsos Reid poll conducted for Global National and Postmedia News indicates the majority of Canadians would prefer to see a Liberal-NDP coalition government (54 per cent) than a Conservative majority government (46 per cent). Also, almost half of Canadians (48 per cent) support the idea of a coalition of opposition parties forming the government. A little more than half (52 per cent) of Canadians oppose the idea.

Coalition watch

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 4:49 PM - 7 Comments

The NDP has nominated a new candidate in Elgin-Middlesex-London.

Rest assured, the Conservative managed to rush out a new attack ad before their preferred narrative was undermined.

What Stephen Harper was writing in 1997

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 9:00 AM - 25 Comments

Terry Milewski digs up an essay penned by Stephen Harper and Tom Flanagan around the same time the former was saying things like this. It sketches a potential Reform-Progressive Conservative “alliance”—as opposed to a merger—and then turns to the question of Quebec.

If Quebec stays in Confederation, the Bloc will either disintegrate or become an autonomist party, participating in federal politics as a representative of Quebec’s specific interests. Philosophically, it is logical for liberals to offer Quebec money and privileged treatment, while conservatives find it easier to offer autonomy and enhanced jurisdiction. On that basis, a strategic alliance of Quebec nationalists with conservatives outside Quebec might become possible, and it might be enough to sustain a government.

None of this will be easy or even likely. But experience shows that a monolithic conservative party is unworkable; so conservatives who are unhappy with a one-party-plus system featuring the Liberals as the perpetual governing party may have little choice but to construct an alliance, at least of the two anglophone sisters, and perhaps ultimately including a third sister. An alliance would face many difficulties, to be sure, but it would also have two great advantages. It would reflect the regional and cultural character of Canadian society, and it would give that character an institutional expression. Also, it would allow leaders of the regional parties to defend necessary compromises as precisely that — necessary compromises. In a single national party, compromises have to be defended as party policy, which tends to drive dissenters out of the fold.

Mr. Harper and Mr. Flanagan then concluded with an ode to political cooperation, including mention of the “coalition governments” that exist in Europe. Continue…

What he was trying to say

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, March 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM - 32 Comments

Stephen Harper was apparently asked today about his comments in 1997 about a future “coalition or working alliance” among parties in Parliament.

“This clip was a clip of me discussing uniting the right,” Mr. Harper told reporters Tuesday. “I don’t think it was any secret we were trying to bring together the Progressive Conservatives, the Reform Alliance and the Democratic Representatives. We were very clear we were looking for mechanisms to bring us together – and we did create a merger as you know.”

He stressed: “I have never attempted to take office without winning an election. The other guys did.”

The TVO interview seems to have occurred shortly after Mr. Harper resigned in 1997 and, as Paul notes, the Democratic Representative Caucus wouldn’t come into existence for another four years. (When Mr. Harper spoke, five parties existed: the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, Bloc Quebecois, NDP and Reform.)

That aside, his specific comments in 1997 about the future arrangement of our parliamentary democracy seemed to exceed both a simple merger of the PCs and Reform and his contention now that only the party that wins the most seats can form government.

Continue…