The opposition is overplaying their hand

Stephen Harper is a despicable opportunist. He poisoned our country's federal politics for his own selfish ends at a time when people of all political stripes agree that cooperation, above all else, was required of our elected officials. He risked the economic wellbeing of his citizens in the name of  juvenile partisan nonsense, and, as if this wasn't enough, he did all of this roughly six weeks after pledging his desire to "govern for all Canadians" by "hold[ing] out a hand to all members of all parties." This much, I think, most progressives agree on.

Where we seem more divided is on the notion of what should be done about this. Many think the answer is a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition Liberal-NDP coalition with Bloc support [edit -- thanks IP]. This is where I must differ.

I'm unclear exactly what there is to be gained from such a move, apart from immediate power. Does anyone really think this coalition is going to last more than a month or two? And what happens when Harper brings it down, and we have an election mirroring the last, only with an even broker Liberal party that, along with the NDP, will be portrayed (probably successfully, and not entirely without justification) by the well-funded Conservative campaign machine as having conspired with separatists to grab power? This is a recipe for a Harper majority government.

Also, how will this coalition function? Does anyone really think that the Bloc isn't going to milk it to the last drop? More to the point: why on earth wouldn't they? This is their dream scenario: a government incapable of winning an election -- let's be honest -- that is utterly beholden to the Bloc's every whim to avoid having to fight one. How can this coalition be expected to put together any sort of coherent national policy when everything it proposes will be measured through the lens of potential gain for Quebec? It can't.

Liberals have been talking a lot lately about renewal. I can't think of anything that would take them farther backwards -- possibly irrevocably -- than going through with this. As I interpret it, the broad consensus among those commenting on the issue is that the Liberals need to increase their appeal to a few key constituencies: moderate suburban and rural voters, federalist Quebeckers, and progressive-leaning Western Canadians. What better way to do this than form a coalition, with the NDP and sovereigntists, drawn overwhelmingly from east of Manitoba, to topple a primarily Western-based government? The fact that the Liberals are even contemplating this shocks me.*

What bothers me most, though, is the thought of the Liberals and NDP sinking to Stephen Harper's pathetic level. I don't for a second buy the Conservative talking points about a coalition government being "undemocratic," "illegal," or a "coup d'etat," but neither was the Fiscal Update that precipitated all of this. It was simply bad form -- an embodiment of the ideal of power as an end. The coalition forming government would represent a similar embodiment of that ideal. I simply don't think it's in the best interest of the country to have a Prime Minister who can't even control his own caucus attempting to navigate a global economic crisis of epic proportions with two men that up until a week ago were his sworn enemies.

The actions of the opposition are beginning to overshadow what is really the biggest revelation stemming from this mess, and the first ace the opposition has been dealt in about two years: all of the talk of Harper being a viciously partisan ideologue with a hidden agenda has been conclusively proven to be true. Which is why I think that the opposition still has time, if they act quickly, to salvage this. Meet with Harper and agree to let the government stand if he coughs up some stimulus (the lack of which, lets not forget, is ostensibly why this coalition was formed). Make a big deal of your generous multipartisanship, so he'll be inclined to play ball. Let him continue to govern under a watchful eye, and when the next opportunity comes, fight an election and remind Canadians that their worst suspicions were confirmed.

I don't think they'll forget. Played right, this could spell the end of Harper. However, faced with the opportunity for empirical proof of their moral superiority, the opposition seems more interested in taking a short and potentially disastrous run in the captain's chair. That's not the kind of thing the electorate typically takes kindly to. For the sake of the advancement of progressive ideals, I hope the coalition members -- the ones interested in the long-term viability of Canada as a nation, at least -- think about that.

*This matters, I think, because to have any hope of winning a majority, or governing in the case of a minority, a party (or set of parties) will have to present a fairly centrist set of ideals. Which means that, given our current political landscape, it will need to involve the Liberals in a large way. I voted NDP in the last election, but the simple fact is that their brand is absolutely repellent to a large chunk of our population. So, to have a strong chance of advancing a progressive set of ideals, I think a strong Liberal Party is essential. A strong NDP, to me, would be welcome but not a necessity.

Comments

[sam]

No way.

Harper has to go. The Conservatives are unfit to govern and we don't have to deal with them anymore. After yesterday's bullshit in QP, they revealed their true colors: bigoted, Karl Rovian, etc.

The coalition has every Parliamentary right to govern.

And the coalition will be eminently stable.

READ the economic accord.

It is OBVIOUS that the opposition parties agree to those principles and will act to achieve them.

There is nothing to worry about.

It is this kind of Liberal dithering that always gives power back to the Right.

What could be better in a time like this than to have a unified government which represents the majority of votes in Parliament -- and thus the majority of votes in the last election.

The issues of Dion or the "separatists" have no relevance in this issue.

READ the political accord -- the Bloc has agreed in writing to not use the coalition to advance the cause of separatism. Plus, everyone with a brain knows that separatism is not on the agenda in Quebec, so there is nothing to worry about.

My happiness is that our f'n industrial policy will no longer be beholden to the interests of oil profit in Alberta. THAT was a lopsided deal for the rest of the country.

Stop falling for Conservative talking points.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/547336

[ch]

JK:

Your comments are based overwhelmingly on the assumption that majority governments are a fact of life. This isn't necessarily the case. I for one think that this could open the opportunity for coalition governments in Canada, which in turn could make Canadian politics much less divisive and reduce the saliency of regional identities in our country.

Don't you think we should also view this constitutional crisis in terms of political institutional change, not just the near-term fortunes of two or three parties?

[Avnish Nanda]

Solid post jk. I agree with you on many of your points.

[Idealistic Pragmatist]

Many think the answer is a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition.

The people who put together the Liberal-NDP (and no Bloc) coalition don't seem to think that at all. Does anyone? Maybe a few Bloc voters, but that's unlikely...

Supporting a government isn't the same as being a part of it. Unless you think the Liberals were ACTUALLY a part of the last government.

[eh]

I stand with ch on this one. Looks like we might need to get an AGRDT coalition gov't in the works....

[Christopher Thrall]

Fantastic post, and I've sent it to a few people to outline my concerns after I trumpeted the possibility of a coalition government early on in this -storm.

I'm worried that the existence of the coalition depends on satisfying the Bloc at every point, allowing the Cons to introduce a confidence motion that plays even harder to the separatists. (If there is a game that Harper plays well, it's that one.) I'd actually love to see a non-Harper Conservative faction included in the coalition.

The western alienation card might be the elephant in the room right now, but it's hard to get into the mindset of the anti-Easterner/firewall-building reactionary, so I don't know how legit a concern it is.

Calgary Grit agrees with a lot of the points here, while Angry in the Great White North makes some decent points for the other side. Even Grandinite seems to be weighing in against the coalition. I'll keep following them all.

[Rob]

My solution:

CPC Removes Harper
Prorogue Parliament
New PM brings a budget forward in January

This allows both sides to cool off, and to claim partial victory. The Liberals have Harper's head, the Conservatives have 24 Sussex. Everybody wins.

[jk]

ch/eh:

I had a feeling this might cause some dissent in the ranks!

With regards to your comment, I'm going to first have to disagree with your assertion that this has the potential to reduce the salience of regional issues. I don't think that granting the Bloc the type of legitimacy they could only dream of, while simultaneously ousting a primarily Western party in an indirect manner and replacing it with a primarily Eastern one (I don't subscribe to this hyperbolic rhetoric, but that's how it seems to be playing out here) will accomplish that, and will in fact contribute to the opposite effect.

Second, if this contributes to any sort of change in our political institutions, I think it will be a realignment along left/right lines -- aka Stephen Harper's raison d'etre. Our electoral system punishes diversity, so as long as the Conservatives continue to suck up 100% of the conservative vote, I think they'll be the primary beneficiary of any move toward coalitions.

I'm afraid that a coalition like this will precipitate a dependency by the Liberal Party on the NDP that will be hard to escape from, and if they keep working together they'll eventually tire of winning 106 seats with 48% of the vote while the Conservatives pull 143 with 36% of the vote. Which will, in turn, produce a strong incentive to merge. And I don't like that for all kinds of reasons.

[jk]

IP:

Fair point, but I think the formal inclusion of the bloc in the coalition is a technicality. The situation in the last session was much different, because the Conservatives had two (and possibly three, depending on how many Liberals were abstaining) parties from which they could potentially enlist support, and a willingness to fight an election if none of these parties bit. This coalition will require the support of the Bloc on every motion, because they sure as hell won't be getting it from the Conservatives, and they sure as hell don't want an election.

[Idealistic Pragmatist]

Fair point, but I think the formal inclusion of the bloc in the coalition is a technicality.

And that's where you're wrong. I realize that Canadians haven't seen how coalition governments actually work, but I have, and trust me, there's a big difference between a minority coalition with the formal support of an opposition party and a majority coalition.

[jk]

IP:

Okay, so there's a difference between a minority coalition with the formal support of an opposition party and a majority coalition. That, to me, doesn't change the fact that every policy the coalition tries to implement will have to adequately satisfy the Bloc's interests -- ie, be disproportionately beneficial to Quebec -- to get passed. The Bloc may not have a part in crafting said policies, but I think the end result will be much the same. Do you honestly see the Bloc doing anything else?

I don't, and given their relative weakness, I don't think the coalition parties have very many ways to avoid playing this game.

[lance]

And that, IP, is why there should be an election instead of a coalition when Harper loses the confidence of the house.

It's one thing to form a minority gov't, it's another to form a minority gov't coalition that is still only the second largest "party" and dependent on another party for confidence motions only.

I have no problem with the coalition under the rules but it should have to be a full coalition that will then hold the most seats as opposed to just the most votes.

Cheers,
lance

[rc]

ch;

"Your comments are based overwhelmingly on the assumption that majority governments are a fact of life. This isn't necessarily the case."

You know, there's a myth that - for whatever reason - majority governments are overwhelmingly preferable to minority Parliament coalitions, ad-hoc or otherwise. I don't just hear this from conservatives, but progressives as well.

But evidence points to the opposite perhaps being true, just because of the contributions to Canadian civil society brought about by minority governments; old-age pensions in the mid-1920s, and the Medical Care Act in the mid-60s, to name two.

[rc]

jk;

"That, to me, doesn't change the fact that every policy the coalition tries to implement will have to adequately satisfy the Bloc's interests -- ie, be disproportionately beneficial to Quebec -- to get passed."

Uhm -- How is that really different from Harper's own pandering to Quebec in his government's first term, in a play to win seats there?

Not that they managed to win much of anything the last time around - but that's not to say they Mr. Harper didn't throw more than a few pennies into that fountain.

[Aaron]

Read this article and you will see why the opposition did the right thing and why there was so much spin and lies that have made Canadians angry at the NDP/Libs, instead of at Harper, who they should be angry at.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/12/03/coalition-broadbent.html

[jk]

RC:

To answer your question, I think that a little bit of ass-kissing towards the citizens of Quebec is quite a bit different from having to rely on the votes of the Bloc Quebecois caucus to pass every motion your government presents.

This isn't to defend the actions of Conservatives -- I want to make abundantly clear that I'd love to be rid of them. I fear the coalition, which seems so myopic and ill-conceived, would accomplish this in the very short term, but create much larger problems in the long term.

[rc]

jk;

"To answer your question, I think that a little bit of ass-kissing towards the citizens of Quebec is quite a bit different from having to rely on the votes of the Bloc Quebecois caucus to pass every motion your government presents."

As was pointed out by Daveberta, either the Conservatives or the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition will require the votes of the BQ in the Commons in order to move forward; especially given the rigid partisanship and strict party-line votes in the House.

"This isn't to defend the actions of Conservatives -- I want to make abundantly clear that I'd love to be rid of them. I fear the coalition, which seems so myopic and ill-conceived, would accomplish this in the very short term, but create much larger problems in the long term."

I know; I mean this with all due respect, of course.

I do think the Coalition for Change would do well to pressure Harper to resign as PM - as this conflagration is arguably centred around him, personally - and support Rob Nicholson to become the Prime Minister (as I mentioned elsewhere, he is next in the Cabinet's order of precedence) to lead the Conservative government through the interim period.

But in that time frame, before the Conservatives can elect a new Leader, the Coalition for Change would do well to begin caucusing together to find its footing -- and use the internet medium, open houses and other means to really stretch its legs.

[jk]

RC:

The big difference is that the Conseratives, given their campaign infrastructure, consolidated support base, massive financial advantage, and weak opposition (ie Dion) are only too happy to go back to the electorate over and over again until they get the result they want. On the other hand, every election for the coalition members -- or, more precisely, the Liberals -- is a potential calamity to be avoided at all costs until they have money and a leader.

This frees the Conservatives from worrying too much about what the opposition thinks, and shackles the coalition to Bloc support until their ability to fight an election improves. I'm confident, however, that they would be brought down well before that happens -- why would the Bloc let their primary competition in Quebec fully recuperate prior to an election being called?

The subsequent mess -- a Liberal party utterly in tatters, without a leader or money, fresh off a stinky romp with sovereigntists and the NDP -- is the stuff of Harper's wildest fantasies.

[Idealistic Pragmatist]

Do you honestly see the Bloc doing anything else?

I actually wasn't arguing anything other than that your terminology was wrong (and that the distinction you were failing to make was important). But since you asked, I see the Bloc's influence being no greater an influence on the proposed new government (and no less, for that matter) than it was when that very same party was propping up the Conservative minority government last session. Which is to say: they'll be a thorn in the coalition's sides, forcing them to do at least a few things they wouldn't otherwise have made a big thing of, but nothing outrageous or even out of the ordinary will happen.

As for lance, well, I share your concern about the coalition being a minority one. But I don't see any potential for a new election achieving anything at all, and the current government can't stand when it's lost the confidence of the House. The coalition idea isn't ideal, but at this point it's really the only choice that can stand a chance of getting us out of this mess. I think they've earned the right to try.

[Brian Dell]

Well, to a lot of Conservative supporters, forcing out Harper and Flaherty in no less a coup than forcing out the whole party. Harper isn't much loved, but there has be serious internal dissent within the party to get a party leader out, and that isn't really there. A lot of em see Harper as this dominant personality that holds the motley crew of Alberta firsters, religious conservatives, and PC holdovers together, kind of like Saddam's relatively orderly pre-invasion Iraq. He got them to within a dozen seats of a majority, and the Liberals down to not much more than half their seats. The economy has been holding up OK in 2008 as well, whether that's because of Harper or in spite of him. Many Conservatives think Harper is some sort of political genius, such that even if he gets forced out now, it's all part of some master plan to trap his enemies that gets him back in with a majority within 2 years. Too many rank and file supporters think Harper is smarter than they are, a step ahead of everyone, such that they'll give him the benefit of the doubt about his apparent mistakes, even it if they admit that it looks like a mistake to them. I suspect the party would sooner follow Harper to the opposition benches, thinking Harper will bring them back to the other side stronger than ever one day, than cut him loose and hold on to their current government.

Dion will be a lame duck as Prime Minister, just by definition, and Ignatieff (or Rae) will have to go to the polls to get his own mandate relatively quickly. That, and the signed agreement with the NDP, leave Iggy with limited room to maneouver, while Harper can do almost everything in an Opposition position where he's not responsible for outcomes.

[jk]

IP:

... and I was arguing that the distinction isn't important because the result will be roughly the same.

I don't think it's debatable to say that the Bloc will have a lot more leverage with the coalition than they did with the Conservatives, and I don't think it's realistic to expect that they won't use it.

[Fish]

I agree with jk's post pretty much entirety. Underestimating Harper's intelligence as a political chess-player here is as bad as overestimating his honesty. Debate this, but I believe he was hoping for this coalition before it happened, which is why he attacked via the $1.95 issue ... which a majority of Canadians aren't in favour of unless they happen to depend on the money. (Personally, I like it.)

But the coalition's *optics* are shaky on so many levels, especially in the west. Just ignoring "Conservative talking points," however banal, denies their actual marketability. What the PM is trying to do, as is Jack Layton, is delay a Liberal revival via, potentially, Ignatieff. Wet dream, indeed.

If the PM's playing the game I think he is, it's pretty dispicable politicking, considering and indeed taking advantage of the global and (now he finally admits) rising Canadian economic troubles. Certainly not the extended hand he promised.

This is an attempt to blow the Liberals off the map by making them seem even less, shall we say, "presidential."

o<

[tommy]

I do recognize the risky situation the Liberals-NDP place on themselves. But what better accountability situation? Their sucess or failure is totally up to themselves (albeit with Bloc support).

Since the BQ is not formally a part of the coalition, and it is likely that no BQ member would be included in the coalition cabinet... the hardball that the BQ may opt to play won't be as easily done behind doors and instead will likely have to surface in the open in the House. I would hope at least. Thus, I feel that the BQ role is to play referee: making sure whatever good for Canada policies are implemented are also good for Quebec. And if Quebec is indeed hurting, then I have no problem with that. This means that any petty small thing - like free bonbons for all Quebecois - that Quebec may demand will be open to public record and to the scrutiny of the House and public. If the BQ ended up forcing an election because of a free unicorns for Quebec thing, it could very well blowback in their face in the election (not everyone in Quebec is separatist and votes BQ).

Thus, I feel that the coalition has a very good public deterrent built in... whatever party (Liberal, NDP, or BQ) unnecessarily bungles it up, will likely do so at their demise. If the risks of a failed coalition are high and are understood by the opposition parties, then I think that could be enough for the glue. The coalition is handcuffed together and will only succeed with cooperation.

If the coalition does succeed, great. An integrity boost for the respective parties involved. And I too am of the impression that coalitions are in fact a positive in terms of good government. So I hope it would be precedent for cooperation over divisive partisan politics and proportional representation.

[mynalee johnstone]

Your approach was disappointing. I trust the BLOC. They are social democrats . I see them as a link with the Greens and the NDP. They are not power mongers as the 2 big parties have been. But the press and others look for power in this game of politics. It was my hope that they,the Coalition, would utilize the available great minds of Canada and the world to figure out the better programs to proceed with.
The real division now is between ENVIRONMENTALISTS and NON ENVIRONMENTALISTS.
The Coalition was representing the Environmentalists. Elizabeth May and many others were excited about it.
It became our hope and our YES WE CAN.
We want more equality, justice and peace in our world.I believe that Obama does too.
Is there anyone who really knows how to proceed with the world's economy?
We too want change. Now we have Flaherty fishing about for ideas. I knew this would happen. Every week passing gives the Conservatives a chance to pad up their budget with programs that a Coalition would have to accept . Plagiarism. If they don't, they will be declared unreasonable, uncooperative and Mr. Harper will be back complaining to the GG.
We will all go back to our little parties and waste a lot of energy and money to get out and tell our stories in the next election. Piddle. Diddle.
Go round and round in the circle game.
I can already feel the energy
leaking. Meanwhile, we wait for the US to decide what its going to do, while no one is getting access to who is getting what in the 3 trillion TARP.
The 62% are fading out. What could possibly be a catalyst to pull something strong and good together?