Coalition talk

27 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering
Coalition talk

TBA

 

 

 

 

 

Issues Pages: 
Pondering

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/04/07/No-NDP-Liberal-Coalition/

But the odds of Trudeau warming to the idea before an election -- or after it -- seem increasingly remote given Mulcair's recent attacks on the Liberal leader.

"Whether it's meeting premiers to work on the future of our federation or meeting world leaders to discuss economic opportunities or terrorist threats, being prime minister is not an entry level job," Mulcair said to a Montreal NDP audience in March, directly targeting Trudeau as having neither "the experience or a plan" to govern.....

Conservative columnist Tasha Kheiriddin identified one big problem for New Democrats with a coalition:

"Once the darling of so-called 'progressive' Canadian thought, the concept of uniting the left to beat the right has slowly fallen from favour. That's probably because a coalition led by the popular Trudeau would look more like an enlarged Liberal party than a marriage of equals,"Kheiriddin wrote in December 2014.

But for many New Democrats, the idea that Liberals are either "left" or "progressive" is both absurd and offensive. They see the Conservatives and Liberals as Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

....

So a "cat and mouse" coalition is ridiculous to many NDP voters. They also know that former federal NDP leader David Lewis got much progressive legislation from Pierre Trudeau's 1972-74 minority government without forming a coalition.

But for the Conservatives, the coalition word has an irresistible charm. It's how they defeated the ill-fated Liberal-NDP attempt to push them out of office in 2008 without an election. Public anxiety about the prospect of another possible coalition gave Harper his majority winin 2011.

The Conservatives know and love the fact that many left New Democrats and Greens are willing to throw in the electoral towel and demand an accord or coalition with the Liberals to stop the "horrors" of Harper.

That means many sitting NDP Members of Parliament and potential MPs will be defeated as just enough panicked progressives vote Liberal in NDP-held or friendly ridings to let Conservatives squeak in with three and four way splits.

So count on Harper to focus on the NDP and Liberals coalescing as a means of consolidating Conservative votes -- and attracting apprehensive right-Liberals who are increasingly anxious about Trudeau's inexperience and abilities....

That was then, this is now. But the odds of Trudeau warming to the idea before an election -- or after it -- seem increasingly remote given Mulcair's recent attacks on the Liberal leader.

"Whether it's meeting premiers to work on the future of our federation or meeting world leaders to discuss economic opportunities or terrorist threats, being prime minister is not an entry level job," Mulcair said to a Montreal NDP audience in March, directly targeting Trudeau as having neither "the experience or a plan" to govern.

Mulcair also said:

"The 'no' is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It's no. End of story. Full stop," he said then.

Last month Mulcair said it was Trudeau, not him rejecting any coalition talk.

"Whenever we have opened that door, Justin Trudeau slams it shut," Mulcair in March. "My first priority is to get rid of Stephen Harper. The first priority of Justin Trudeau is Justin Trudeau."

"We're a progressive party. We want to get results. I'll let other parties explain to you why they don't think that that's a good idea," Mulcair said.

These don't seem like comments a leader who wants to form a coalition would make. 

The following is from Trudeau:

Asked on Tuesday whether having someone other than Mulcair as leader would change the dynamic in terms of a coalition between the two parties, Trudeau replied: "I don't know....Honestly, I don't want get into hypotheses. Maybe, but maybe not.

"There are no problems in terms of personality," he told The Canadian Press in an interview from Oakville, Ont. "Mr. Mulcair is a veteran politician who has proven himself.

"His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics. Politics needs to be about rallying. And we have very different perspectives on how politics should be practised."...

"I'm not interested at all in any formal arrangement," said the Liberal leader. "On the contrary, I find that wanting to make arrangements with other parties is putting the desire for power ahead of the interests of Canadians. What Canadians are interested in is having a coherent government."

Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues.

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/04/14/trudeau-might-be-open-to-for...

So, does the NDP and their supporters really want a coaltion with the Liberals? 

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics.

Not to speak for everyone, but I do get the sense that people kind of miss that.  Genuine "Red Tories" with a conservative fiscal outlook combined with a real desire to see everyone's fortunes rise; ads about what your party wants to do, not the evils that the other guy has done; leaders discussing the actual issues, not "gotcha" sound bites.  When did "old skool" politics become bad politics?

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics.

Not to speak for everyone, but I do get the sense that people kind of miss that.  Genuine "Red Tories" with a conservative fiscal outlook combined with a real desire to see everyone's fortunes rise; ads about what your party wants to do, not the evils that the other guy has done; leaders discussing the actual issues, not "gotcha" sound bites.  When did "old skool" politics become bad politics?

I think he meant different not necessarily bad but if you look at the way Mulcair has been campaigning up until now he has been attacking Trudeau with gotcha sound bites relying on the same approach as Harper. 

Mulcair likes to give the appearance of offering substance but I think he offers the opposite. He said he wanted to release important platform planks in advance so Canadians would have a chance to evaluate his platform over more time. What's to evaluate over time? 

I commend his bold position on C 51. 

But to get back to the topic of a Liberal/NDP coalition, I am not in favor of one at all. An accord of sorts if Harper wins a minority might be appropriate but I am not convinced it would benefit the NDP or the Liberals or Canadians. 

 

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
His style is anchored in the old way of practising politics.

Not to speak for everyone, but I do get the sense that people kind of miss that.  Genuine "Red Tories" with a conservative fiscal outlook combined with a real desire to see everyone's fortunes rise; ads about what your party wants to do, not the evils that the other guy has done; leaders discussing the actual issues, not "gotcha" sound bites.  When did "old skool" politics become bad politics?

I think he meant different not necessarily bad but if you look at the way Mulcair has been campaigning up until now he has been attacking Trudeau with gotcha sound bites relying on the same approach as Harper. 

Mulcair likes to give the appearance of offering substance but I think he offers the opposite. He said he wanted to release important platform planks in advance so Canadians would have a chance to evaluate his platform over more time. What's to evaluate over time? 

I commend his bold position on C 51. 

But to get back to the topic of a Liberal/NDP coalition, I am not in favor of one at all. An accord of sorts if Harper wins a minority might be appropriate but I am not convinced it would benefit the NDP or the Liberals or Canadians. 

 

No Trudeau was implying he is doing things fresh and new not stogy and old, which of course is only as absurd as the second bolded part which applies a whole lot more to trudeau than mulcair. In fact yesterday after the Ukraine announcement CBC cut to trudeaus speach and after words the reporter said their is no air between the two parties (cons and libs) on yet another issue.

Here Ill repost a snip from the CBC

In Rimouski, Que. Tuesday, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair said his party was concerned with the Harper government's "unilateral decision."

"This is not something that's even been discussed for one hour in the House of Commons," Mulcair said. 

"If NATO were to act... that would be one thing, but here this is Canada acting alone," he said, contrasting what's happening now with earlier missions to Mali and Libya, when MPs were consulted.

"Stephen Harper won't talk to Parliament... Canadians have every right to be consulted about this," he said.

​Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau called the mission "consistent with Canada's interests and capacities in the world," and told reporters in Oakville, Ont. that Canada had to "make sure that we're doing what we can to help against the unacceptable Russian actions."

While the Harper government has lacked transparency and accountability during past missions, Trudeau said he was reassured by Kenney being unequivocal about where the training was taking place and his insistence Canadian forces would not engage Russian troops.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-crisis-canada-sending-200-traine...

So I don't know what you have been reading but it honestly sounds like opposite land given how Trudeau is taking another position in line with the conservatives as usual.

Sean in Ottawa

There is nothing new here. The Liberals have often gotten away with this sort of thing.

This is what it means to be the middle-- balanced as the Liberal party is.

What you do is you balance the rhetoric of going in one direction with actions that take you in another.

Liberal traditions are alive.

Liberal promises = Redbull

Slumberjack

Quote:
Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues.

Has anyone been able to figure out what those differences might be, because other than whatever economic priorities are agreeable to an assortment of masters, international lenders, neo-liberal political henchmen around the world and the like, if they exist at all economic differences of opinion between the Liberals and NDP seem vague at best on this side of the bubble.  And constitutional issues?  What a crock.  We're ruled by contingency, exception, and carte blanche on the part of the security apparatus when and where it becomes necessary to make dissent go away.

Sean in Ottawa

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues.

Has anyone been able to figure out what those differences might be, because other than whatever economic priorities are agreeable to an assortment of masters, international lenders, neo-liberal political henchmen around the world and the like, if they exist at all economic differences of opinion between the Liberals and NDP seem vague at best on this side of the bubble.  And constitutional issues?  What a crock.  We're ruled by contingency, exception, and carte blanche on the part of the security apparatus when and where it becomes necessary to make dissent go away.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFzpQCrEnG4

Geoff

The Liberals support Bill C-51, while the NDP opposes it.  Trudeau backs the various Harper war intitiatives (sorry, I've lost count of how many countries we're invading at the moment), while the NDP doesn't.  Trudeau is much less critical of Harper tax cuts than the NDP.

If you want to debate the points made, above, fill your boots. However, all this is superceded by the fact that strategic voting may help Harper win by reducing the number of options for voters from three to two, and by encouraging right-wing Liberals to vote Conservative. 

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues.

Has anyone been able to figure out what those differences might be, because other than whatever economic priorities are agreeable to an assortment of masters, international lenders, neo-liberal political henchmen around the world and the like, if they exist at all economic differences of opinion between the Liberals and NDP seem vague at best on this side of the bubble.  And constitutional issues?  What a crock.  We're ruled by contingency, exception, and carte blanche on the part of the security apparatus when and where it becomes necessary to make dissent go away.

Exactly, therefore Trudeau has left the door wide open to a coalition based on "compromise" concerning policy and unity. It's not like the NDP would insist on passing the Unity Bill as a condition of a coalition. At the same time he neuters Harper's attack (somewhat) that the Liberal are as far left as the NDP (not that that is far left). 

 

Pondering

Geoff wrote:

The Liberals support Bill C-51, while the NDP opposes it.  Trudeau backs the various Harper war intitiatives (sorry, I've lost count of how many countries we're invading at the moment), while the NDP doesn't.  Trudeau is much less critical of Harper tax cuts than the NDP.

If you want to debate the points made, above, fill your boots. However, all this is superceded by the fact that strategic voting may help Harper win by reducing the number of options for voters from three to two, and by encouraging right-wing Liberals to vote Conservative. 

The question is "Do NDP supporters want to have a coalition with the Liberals? "

I say the answer is no, NDP supporters do not want to have a coalition with the Liberals.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Geoff wrote:

The Liberals support Bill C-51, while the NDP opposes it.  Trudeau backs the various Harper war intitiatives (sorry, I've lost count of how many countries we're invading at the moment), while the NDP doesn't.  Trudeau is much less critical of Harper tax cuts than the NDP.

If you want to debate the points made, above, fill your boots. However, all this is superceded by the fact that strategic voting may help Harper win by reducing the number of options for voters from three to two, and by encouraging right-wing Liberals to vote Conservative. 

The question is "Do NDP supporters want to have a coalition with the Liberals? "

I say the answer is no, NDP supporters do not want to have a coalition with the Liberals.

Your are missing the point.

The NDP like any party would prefer to govern alone.

They don't like or respect the Liberals.

However the NDP would agree to govern in a coalition with the Liberals as a better option than letting the Conservatives o allowing the Liberals to govern alone as if they have a majority.

If the Liberals have a minority and don't work with the opposition parties-- it won't last long. If they sit in opposition becuase they don't want to work with the NDP, the Liberal party itself won't last long.

If the NDP gets more seats than the Liberals and that party sides with Harper, the Liberal Party won't last long.

knownothing knownothing's picture

I would prefer if the NDP won a majority but if we had the option to form a coalition with the Liberals either as the 1st party or the 2nd party I would support it provided the NDP had cabinet ministers. It all depends how the seats shake out.

 

 

nicky

I have not heard Elizabeth May pronounce on the recent coalition stand by Justin.

She has often touted cooperation between the opposition parties and offered herself as part of the coalition in 2008, even though the Greens had no seats.

It has often been said that she is secretly allied with the Liberals. She has not criticized Justin publicly on his stand on C-51. It will be interesting to see if she criticizes his ant- coalition stand.

Slumberjack

With very few exceptions, and based on their record of mutual support, they are already in a coalition of sorts when it comes to foreign policy.  A coalition of the willing, or criminal co-conspirators if you will.

nicky

An EKOS poll in December showed 60%favoured a Liberal -NDP coalition over a Conservative government.
This included about 90% of Liberal voters and 80% of New Dems and Greens.
Justin may be seriously out of step with public opinion.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Trudeau is out of step. Wake up,Justin. What an idiot.

nicky
ilha formosa

If JT had more confidence (which comes from having substance) he would not be afraid of doing the rational thing and leaving the door open for a coalition. I'm guessing that he, and probably some Liberals around him, are afraid that Mulcair would outshine Trudeau in a coalition; that they are afraid of the NDP replacing the Liberals on the Canadian left/centre. Well, JT is pushing this process along.

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

If JT had more confidence (which comes from having substance) he would not be afraid of doing the rational thing and leaving the door open for a coalition. I'm guessing that he, and probably some Liberals around him, are afraid that Mulcair would outshine Trudeau in a coalition; that they are afraid of the NDP replacing the Liberals on the Canadian left/centre. Well, JT is pushing this process along.

 

I assume this is out of some political calculation he is making now rather than concern about what happens later. 

In any case, I think it is playing badly for him. He sounds like either a baby demanding a majority (like he did over C-51 -- saying he will support bad legislation until he is given a government) or saying he does not care about democratic representation and would try to govern as if he had a majority ignoring the composition of the House. Given we all know his views on appreciation for dictatorship it could be the second.

Trudeau clearly is in line with Harper in viewing parliament and opposition as more of an inconvenience than an expression of democratic process. Anyone thinking that he would support electoral reform should look at what he says about working with other parties as an indication of what he thinks. We already see enough Liberal arrogance and presumption about how they would govern if they had a plurality.

Yes it is unfortunate that Mulcair previously said he did not want to work with the Liberals although he came around well prior to an eleciton. You can see where this is coming from though. The Liberals are untrustworthy, inconsistant, incompetent partners to work with. Unfortunately the population may elect enough of them that the NDP could have to work with them so the NDP is agreeing. But it is easy to see why nobody would want to work with that party.

Certainly they have to be considered the only party to be this arrogant, presumptious and uncooperative from a third place position. I think it would be grand if voters were able to let them see what fourth looks like. Certainly I am reminded of why when I was younger people hated that party not becuase of its ideology as with the Conservatives but becuase of its extreme arrogance and disdain for anyone who does not share their exact vision.

So if Harper gets a minority -- let's hope Trudeau backs him all the way so that in the following election we can rid this country of Liberals. Then at least we can have elections where we speak about alternative visions from parties who actually believe the rhetoric they say. I believe with the Liberals out of the way Canada would elect a more progressive choice. The distraction of this wolf in progressive clothing serves to keep the Conservatives in power.

But if the Liberals deicde they want to be part of a force to replace Harper's policies we must welcome this conversion.

If they get elected government without having to work with other parties the direction of this country will look like a weathervane. It will make the pollsters the most powerful people in the country even though they are marginally better than the ancient oracles.

 

 

wage zombie

nicky wrote:
I have not heard Elizabeth May pronounce on the recent coalition stand by Justin. She has often touted cooperation between the opposition parties and offered herself as part of the coalition in 2008, even though the Greens had no seats. It has often been said that she is secretly allied with the Liberals. She has not criticized Justin publicly on his stand on C-51. It will be interesting to see if she criticizes his ant- coalition stand.

Technically I'd say she has, although not actively or vigourously.  She has done nothing to try to make him wear it.  When Trudeau said he thought she should be included in the debates, I think in her response she said that she's "not pleased" that he voted for C-51.

Sean in Ottawa

wage zombie wrote:

nicky wrote:
I have not heard Elizabeth May pronounce on the recent coalition stand by Justin. She has often touted cooperation between the opposition parties and offered herself as part of the coalition in 2008, even though the Greens had no seats. It has often been said that she is secretly allied with the Liberals. She has not criticized Justin publicly on his stand on C-51. It will be interesting to see if she criticizes his ant- coalition stand.

Technically I'd say she has, although not actively or vigourously.  She has done nothing to try to make him wear it.  When Trudeau said he thought she should be included in the debates, I think in her response she said that she's "not pleased" that he voted for C-51.

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=903907549660224

ilha formosa

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
So if Harper gets a minority -- let's hope Trudeau backs him all the way so that in the following election we can rid this country of Liberals. Then at least we can have elections where we speak about alternative visions from parties who actually believe the rhetoric they say. I believe with the Liberals out of the way Canada would elect a more progressive choice. The distraction of this wolf in progressive clothing serves to keep the Conservatives in power.

With the withering of the Liberals brought on by JT's lack of skill, I would think some re-aligning would take place. Right-wing Liberals would go to the Conservatives, the NDP would be able to become much more centrist. Parties both further left and right might form. Possibly - but this is thread drift.

Hunky_Monkey

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said Wednesday that he was “unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition” with the NDP. That makes perfect sense. It would be far more logical for the Liberals to make common cause with the Conservatives.

Speaking to reporters in Halifax, Mr. Trudeau sought to clean up a messy quote that he had left behind the day before, in which he suggested he might be willing to co-operate with the NDP, provided Thomas Mulcair was not the leader. This seemed churlish.

Wednesday, the Liberal Leader declared once and for all that he was categorically opposed to a coalition with the NDP, in part because “there’s too many big issues on which the NDP and the Liberal Party of Canada have deep disagreements.”

He’s right. Under Mr. Trudeau’s leadership, the Liberals on most major files have become virtually indistinguishable from Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-coalition-why-trudeau-has...

Hunky_Monkey

Personally, I think Mulcair is putting Trudeau in a very tough spot.  Trudeau says no to a possible post-election coalition with the NDP and he ticks off anti-Harper voters.  They want him gone at all cost.  He says yes, he alienates all the Blue Liberals that left the LPC in droves to support Harper and any Tories not happy with the Harper government.

Good politics for Mulcair.  Bad for Trudeau.  Trudeau gets screwed either way.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

We need to go on left/right ideological lines so we can rumble. A vote for Liberals is a dysfunctional vote out of fear of conflict. There will be no conflict with the Liberals. They will continue the Tory corporate agenda of running down public services and privatizing. Wynne selling off parts of Ontario Hydro is one good example. Some of the worst economically right wing stuff is done by Liberals. They cannot be trusted by anyone on the left any more.

The NDP might be just as bad, don't get me wrong. But they have not had a chance to be. The LIberals will prop up the Conservatives, and then merge into them when the time is right. We have had Liberal-Conservative government before, and we could very well have it again after the election of 2015. All Justin Trudeau will have to do to prop it up is nothing.

ilha formosa

Quote:
The polarization of Canadian politics

“What we are witnessing today in Canadian politics … is the culmination of a long-term decline of a centrist Liberal party, and a historical reorientation of Canadian politics along left/right ideological lines"...Studies of past platforms of the Liberals and Conservatives show that they tended to advance centrist positions. Surveys of voter attitudes showed that left-wing and right-wing voters were attracted about equally to both parties. (The NDP, on the other hand, has always been relatively left-wing in platform and voters)…Rather than a blip, the decline of the Liberal party is the result of long-term trends, and is likely to continue as its “mushy middle” alternative becomes less appealing to polarized voters...

Political polarization could also divide Canadian society. Historically, members of one party tended to say they respected the opposing parties. But in recent decades, surveys show that voter respect for political opponents has declined...“Obviously in the past people had party loyalty and they disliked the other parties. But … they didn’t hate the other parties in a visceral way...”

Debunking myths about Canada's middle class

"The question is not whether the middle class is shrinking," adds Pal, "but can someone between 20-30 years old expect to be middle class in the future? And the answer is no."

What the first article got wrong was the prediction the Liberals would merge with the NDP. Looks like it will die taking a right turn instead. It's academic though, it will splinter left and right regardless.