Calgary Grit Has it All Wrong on the Coalition – Reasons Why We Should Never Listen to Dan Arnold Again (Unless of Course He’s Right)

So I see that Calgary Grit Dan Arnold has taken on the role of official downer of the Liberal Party (don’t listen to him! You’ll see why below).

Dan don’t you know the Liberals have been so starved for good news these past few months (or even years!)? Yet now we may be on the cusp of finally coming back to power and you choose to rain all over our parade. Shame! How dare you try to be a voice of caution!

If this coalition falls apart or never comes to fruition, I’ll be holding you responsible. Just like I still firmly believe that you choosing not to give your Victory Fund dollars to Brant was the only reason the Liberals lost that riding (in your heart you know I’m right!).

So I see you’ve come up 11 reasons why we may want to re-think or be more cautious about this whole coalition business. And you say you MAY write some rebuttals to your own points? Time is of the essence Mr. Arnold, what if the Liberal or NDP brain trust decides to pack it all in because they are unable to think of any rebuttals? Well then it falls to the rest of us to make up for your reckless behaviour.

So below I’ve listed each of Dan Arnold’s 11 feeble points of caution in italics and listed my rebuttals below each point. And yes these are serious rebuttals, but I do encourage other Liberal bloggers to shamelessly gang up on Calgary Grit as well and show him we aren’t the party of pessimism! It’s time for Hope! Change! Caution to the Wind!

Seriously now…

--------------------------------------------------------
1. Western Allienation: As other Alberta Liberals have pointed out, the backlash in Alberta and across Western Canada is going to be huge. You thought the "No! No! No!" headlines were over the top today? Well you ain't seen nothing yet.

Western alienation is probably the biggest issue in my view. I don’t doubt the backlash in the West will be huge. It will likely take months (maybe even close to a year) to subdue and reverse it (in fact I predicted the coalition will start out relatively unpopular across all of Canada at the beginning). But we can recover and make this into winning conditions in the West in particular.

3 Things will be important to be successful
1) Make sure Westerners are well represented in cabinet. Harper obviously has way more Western MPs than the coalition will have, but seriously I’d be surprised if most Westerners could even name 10 of them.
2) Find some issues that are most popular out West and bring them in (ok you’ll have to consult someone who knows the West better than I do but there must be some that the coalition could agree on)
3) Start running ads about 8 months to a year into the coalition government comparing how the new coalition has done MORE for the West than Harper ever did. We value the West, Conservatives took them for granted, etc. etc…

2. The NDP is Legitimized: The one thing which has always kept the Liberals ahead of the NDP, even when the LPC sinks to it's lowest of lows, is the widely held perception that the NDP is not up for the job of being in government. By placing the NDP in Cabinet, you're implicitly admitting that they can handle the job. Plus, I have this rule of thumb that any move that makes Jack Layton grin from ear to ear like a Cheshire cat is a bad move.

This cuts both ways. The NDP’s main talking points about the Liberals will be damaged too. No more “13 years of inaction, blah blah”. And no longer being able to just blindly oppose everything the Liberals do. The NDP used to like to have it every which way as they never had to make a responsible decision. That will change now as they’ll have to wear the decisions made by the coalition.

I think the Liberals will still always outpoll the NDP in the popular vote because we will always be presenting more moderate mainstream policies. As evidence of that, aside from the Green Shift (which we simply do not have a mandate to implement, even though I still believe it’s the right approach) I can’t think of any policies from our platform we had to concede to make this coalition deal work. Meanwhile the NDP had to give up their biggest policy from the last campaign which was raising corporate taxes by $50 billion (instead we’ll get corporate tax cuts as Liberals planned). I’m sure the NDP cabinet ministers would do a good job in the coalition government, but it will be the policies they propose in the next election that will keep their party down below ours.

3. The Coalition Precedence: Similarly, the NDP is going to expect Cabinet posts in any future minority government. So if we wind up with a Liberal plurality in the future, the NDP is going to be demanding seats at the Cabinet table as a condition of support.

Perhaps, but after the Rae-Peterson accord, the Liberals won a majority (if that happened federally the Liberals would just have to make sure they played their cards A LOT better than Peterson did with his majority mandate). Even if they didn’t win a majority, if it’s a strong minority they should be able to govern soundly on their own on an issue by issue basis as Paul Martin did.

As the largest non-Conservative party it will be the Liberals choice to make whether to accept the NDP as coalition partners and I’m fine with that. The amount of seats the NDP would get in a cabinet (or if they get any at all) would surely always depend on how many seats they had relative to the Liberals. A Liberal-NDP coalition still beats Conservative government by a long shot.

4. The Coalition Precedence II: As Stephen Harper's 2004 letter shows, what's good for you one day, is not so good the next. And I have strong doubts that Liberals in love with the idea of a coalition government now would have welcomed one back in 2004. It's highly possible that a future Liberal leader who wins a plurality of the seats might find himself or herself in Stornoway.

Unless the Conservatives start moving to the left of the Liberals or a new strong opposition party comes about I can’t quite see how the Conservatives could really come to a deal with the other opposition parties as the Liberals have. By virtue of their “uniting the right” they have much less common with the remaining parties than the Liberals do. If the 2004 deal had come to pass and they toppled Martin and Harper took over without an election I don’t think his government would have lasted very long with NDP/Bloc support.

5. The End of Strategic Voting: Since I've been following politics, the final week of every campaign has featured a Liberal leader appealing to other progressive voters to vote Liberal in a bid to stop the scary Conservative bogeyman of the day. Once voters have seen a progressive coalition take power, they're going to laugh at any Grit who tries to make the case that a vote for Layton is a vote for Harper. While it might be good for democracy to see this argument disappear, it's a potent argument to surrender.

No strategic voting still makes perfect sense under a FPTP system. In 3 way races where the NDP is running clearly 3rd, a vote for the NDP could lead to a Conservative being elected in that riding. Only if we change electoral systems does strategic voting no longer make sense (something I will be posting about at another time, as I do favour electoral reform).

6. Coalition Times are Tough Times: If we do hit a recession, do you really want to be in power when it happens?

I believe we will hit a recession, but after 18 months hopefully we will be out of it and can claim credit for governing through the storm. And in reality I believe the policies we are proposing are actually a better means of getting out of the storm than what the Conservatives would do. If the economic crisis is not over in 18 months, well hopefully we can manage to extend the deal until the recession is over or at least on the mend (and if Conservatives were in power under similar circumstances after 18 months you can bet they would try to sustain their government in a similar manner).

7. The Race for 24 Sussex: With 30 month and 18 month deals signed, Dion has given his successor the keys to 24 Sussex as a parting gift. But Dion has also handcuffed whoever wins the Liberal leadership race to this contract. Sure, they can break it, but that would be a political hit in and of itself.

All Liberal leadership candidates agreed to the deal. Dion showed the deal to them before the Monday caucus meeting and they all signed on. And why wouldn’t they? As I've said before, it will be FAR easier to combat the inevitable Conservative fear mongering ads in government than from the opposition benches.

Dan I know this means you have to change the name of your Liberal leadership series from the Race for Stornoway, but I hope you don’t mind taking one for the team.

8. The Black Swan Effect: Sure, these parties can probably find common ground on the economy. But what happens when the unexpected happens? Will the Liberals and NDP be able to find ground on foreign policy? And, taking point number 7 to one of its three possible outcomes, could the NDP and Michael Ignatieff find common ground on foreign policy?

The accord lays out what they will focus on and says they will govern on a “no surprises” basis. I think in the end the cabinet will discuss matters as they come up and come to a consensus. The Liberals and NDP already agreed on Afghanistan to stay till 2011 which was another major concession by the NDP. If they can give up that (which was a MAJOR rallying cry for them), then I think the NDP will, for the most part, be willing to cede foreign policy (particularly the most “hot button” issues) to the Liberals (I presume the Foreign Affairs minister will be a Liberal). But with a few exceptions (e.g., positions on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict where I imagine the Liberal position will be the official position of the coalition government) the Liberals and NDP have a fair amount in common with the NDP on foreign policy as it is. The NDP have basically been decrying these past few years the move away from our “proud record on the world stage”, which for the most part is a Liberal record, so I think there’s a lot of room for common ground.

9. No Bloc Party: Yes, I know they've worked with other parties before. And I know nothing has been promised to them. And I trust Stephane Dion more than anyone else to stand up for Canada and to not cave in to Bloc demands. But I hate the Bloc Quebecois with a fiery passion. So this just feels wrong. Especially when the first letter from the trio talks about "a majority of Canadians and Quebecers".The only way to ever stop these kinds of arrangements is for the Liberals and NDP to have a combined majority in the House and for Quebecers to start voting for the Bloc is much smaller numbers.

It’s just an unfortunate reality that in the current House we have to choose between Conservatives propped up by the Bloc, or Liberal-NDP coalition propped up by the Bloc. I’ll choose the latter and it will be a lot better for Canada and the functioning of Parliament than the former.


10. Voter Reaction: Maybe voters will grow to love the coalition. Maybe it will lead to a Liberal majority - a common result of past Liberal/NDP cooperation. But you have to at least recognize that it could backfire. You also have to recognize that after seeing the craziness of the past week, the stability of a Conservative majority will sound appealing to some voters (then again, so could a Liberal majority).

Ok this one is easy, I say voters will “grow to love the coalition” :). Canadians are for the most part centrist or left-of-centre. 62% of them voted for parties that offered what this government will give to them. Again I don’t think the Liberals really surrendered anything other than the Green Shift so I see no reason why anyone who voted Liberal should oppose what they get. The NDP and Bloc supporters seem to be on board with what’s on offer as well. I predict that after a year in government at least 45-55% of Canadians, and hopefully more, will be very happy with the government the coalition provides which is a lot higher than the satisfaction level Canadians would have with a Conservative government one year from now.


11. Mandate: Yes, I know the leader with the fewest seats can govern. Yes, I know we elect parliaments, not Prime Ministers. But at the end of the day, Stephen Harper got 38% of the vote and Stéphane Dion got 26%. The Conservatives got 143 seats and the Liberals got 77. Heck, even the Liberal-NDP coalition only got 114. So, from a purely conceptual point of view, this doesn't feel completely right.

We can’t just focus on the Liberal numbers, this will be a Liberal-NDP government. The Liberals and NDP got 44.4% of the vote, the Conservative 37.7% that’s what we should be mentioning again and again. More Canadians voted for our parties than his, that’s a fact they can’t deny. If they want to talk about how they have more seats while at the same time pretending we don’t have a Parliamentary system and that we directly elect the PM their contradictions will eventually catch up to them.

And the Greens and Bloc also support the coalition so that makes 62% of Canadians that should theoretically be behind this. Beats Stephen Harper’s 38%!

--------------------------------------------------------------

So take that Dan “Stephen Harper is a genius” Arnold! Your pessimism is unwelcome. Only sunny skies ahead!

Unless of course things end up going horribly wrong in a way only Dan Arnold could have predicted, in which case this post may quietly disappear…

Recommend this Post

Forget King-Byng, Remember Clark-Schreyer

"Mr. Clark was defeated on a budget seven months after the election that brought his Tories to power. He asked Edward Schreyer, then the Governor-General, for a dissolution of Parliament. Mr. Schreyer, quite properly and according to constitutional convention, asked the Liberals, under Pierre Trudeau, whether they could govern with a working majority in the House of Commons."

I don't agree with many of the points in the Globe editorial (did they forget they endorsed Stephane Dion for Liberal leader originally?), but I assume they have their facts straight on what happened in 1979. At that time, Joe Clark had a minority with a slightly greater percentage of seats in the House than Stephen Harper currently does. 7 months, not 7 weeks had passed since the election. And there was no formal deal between opposition parties. Yet even considering all that Shreyer denied Clark's request for dissolution and asked the leader of the official opposition if he could form a government. Trudeau refused and that was his right, but the precedent in the upcoming case is obviously clear, Stephane Dion must be given the opportunity to demonstrate he can govern with majority support in the House of Commons.

Governor General Jean's decision should never rest on a PR war, polls, rallies, petitions or any other kind of public display. Her decision should rest solely on her constitutional responsibilities and ample precedents, not just from 1979 in our system but dozens of precedents from other countries that also carry our system. If Conservatives can't accept the Westminister Parliamentary model we have and the role of the Governor General perhaps they should advocate constitutional change, but you can't do an end run around our constitution just because you don't like the result. The formation of coalitions is common enough with this system (just take a look at other countries that have it and whose government have been managed well) and the ONLY reason the Conservatives oppose it this time is because they will lose power.

They were fine with the Governor General handing over power to Stephen Harper without an election in 2004, why the problem now?

They were fine with the "separatists" being the ONLY party to prop them up on confidence votes for almost the first full TWO YEARS of their last government, why the problem now?

I expect no response from a single Blogging Tory.

This is no undemocratic power grab. Harper has lost the right to govern, it's nobody's fault but his own (even many Conservatives admit this) and there is a coalition waiting in place to govern better and more in the interests of all Canadians. I hope Harper just accepts his fate, doesn't run, and the Governor General respects precedent and allows a new government to assume power. Not only is it the right thing to do constitutionally, it's what's best for Canada and Parliament during these troubled times as well.

Recommend this Post

A Bloc Without A Cause

So Governor General Michaëlle Jean tells France President Sarkozy to not
forget about the million Francophones outside of Quebec and Duceppe loses it? I’m just as puzzled as some others out there. Seems pretty clear to me that this should be something our Governor General saying.

The Bloc just seem to be grasping at straws these days, hoping they can find some cause that will salvage their chances in the next election. I'm pretty sure Duceppe's bizarre rant won't be a winner for them though.

Recommend this Post

Gaming the Throne Speech

With tomorrow being the day of the Throne Speech, here’s my thoughts.

Plainly, I don’t think the Liberals should be gearing up to go an election right now. And I think that goes for all parties. But the Liberals could use more time to organize to make sure they’ve got the best possible campaign plan ready to go when they have to go on the trail. Personally, I think the more time until an election, the more rope we’re giving Harper to hang himself, and today’s news that he’s creating some despotic gov't -propaganda newsroom paid for by tax payer's dollars boosts that view in my books. If Jean Chrétien had been made to lead the Liberals only one year into his leadership, it’s a pretty safe bet there’d have been no Liberal majority and they could have easily lost. It’s not to say the Liberals would lose if they went now, just that they would do better if they went later.

The Liberals need to make sure their organization on the ground is solid in each province and just as important they need to put forth a Red Book that is as good as it could be possibly be (from what I hear it’s not finished yet though so more time would be useful). Also the Harper government has had a free ride this past summer and once back in the House the heat will be put back on them over several things that have slipped under the radar. So the polls could easily be in our favour in a few months.

So I think the Liberals should do a coordinated abstention as floated about where the front benches vote against and the others don’t show up. Now I know there are many Liberals who feel that we have to always stand on principle and if it’s a bad speech we have to go to the polls. Well I would say that we should not let Harper pick the time to go to the polls by doing so. He’s gearing to go, let’s not do him any favours. Harper has been laying a few Liberal traps recently, and we shouldn’t fall into them.

The speech from the throne is just a symbolic speech after all. If it passes it has virtually no consequences for anything. Can anybody tell me the last time, Canadians went to an election over a throne speech?

Now if Harper puts forth bad legislation and makes it a confidence vote then I think there’s a real case to be made that it’s worth going to the polls over. But that’s not what we are looking at here. It’s just a speech and it’s much more important that we win the next election, so you have to weigh one against the other.

So if the speech passes so be it, not worth complaining about, and maybe a little bit of private relief should be welcomed. But if Harper then in turn wants to start making crime bills confidence votes then he’s the one that will look ridiculous as that’s completely unprecedented. So better we go to the polls over something stupid on his part then go on something he wants us to bite on.

Now it may in the end make sense for us to go before the next budget and there’s a solid case to be made on that, but that won’t be till February or March and the time spent organizing between now and then could make all the difference in a campaign. So I’d be much more in favour of voting down the government in January than in the current scenario.

Now of course the Bloc and NDP will hoot and howl at a Liberal absentia, but we shouldn’t be baited by them either. The Bloc has no arguments to make as they’ve voted for the last two budgets which were terrible. Meanwhile, the NDP may get to laugh now, but come election time, what argument will they bring to the people? “Lend us your vote just one more time and we’ll, um…complain some more about the Harper government!” The NDP have ZERO accomplishments to point towards in this parliament and have spent 90% of their time bashing Liberals instead of Conservatives (some “official opposition”). No one will believe that the NDP could form the government so what else could Jack say? People won’t forget that he asked them to "lend the NDP your vote" and that they got nothing for it other than a government diametrically opposed to the values of progressive voters.

Despite the NDP gloating now, come campaign time the Liberals will be able to argue that if you want a more progressive government you HAVE to vote back in a Liberal government (Elizabeth May will make the same argument) and that the NDP is actually much more effective with the Liberals in power anyway (just compare Martin Vs. Harper governments: something to think about Dippers). So there’s an even less compelling argument to be baited by the other opposition parties.

So Stéphane keep at it on planning the next campaign, pull your team together, and make sure YOU pick the time we go to the polls!

Recommend this Post