Conservative-NDP Cooperation? But How?

I’ve been thinking (and fantasizing) along exactly these lines, but as usual, you’ve stated it much more clearly than I could have. Thanks.

“So whatever agenda might be hidden in Stephen Harper’s back pocket is going to run up against a brick wall of three other parties who aren’t going to play ball.”

There are thousands of things a minority government can do without having it go through parliament. Harper can stack the SCC with rabid socons for instance. He can order lawsuit after lawsuit be launched against the Liberal Party of Canada over the sponsorship program until the Liberal Party is bankrupt and destitute. If you think Harper can’t advance the neocon agenda with a minority government you are sadly mistaken. And if you don’t believe he will then you are naive.

How many vacancies in the Supreme Court of Canada are likely to appear in the next two years? How likely is it that Harper could succeed without making his agenda clear? Not very, I think.

The question of who gets to appoint court members should be part of the issues tackled under democratic reform, and that’s one thing that the NDP should keep in their sights.

As for lawsuits against the Liberals — didn’t the Liberals try that against Mulroney? How far do you think they could go on this if the courts rule these suits to be spurious?

And if these suits are not spurious, then let the Liberal party be bankrupt.

I liked the blog. I have a similar article in my blog today, though I come to a different conclusion.

I like the scenario you describe, but I fear there are too many mischievious (and malicious) wrench-throwers of all political stripes that will forestall its fruition.

Is it likely that a conservative NDP coalition would outnumber a Liberal BQ coalition?

Ethics: OK, maybe there could be enough all party support for this issue.

Democratic Reform: The Libs and BQ would never (naturally) go for it, and I doubt that the Cons would be that inspired to even bring it up themselves as the advantages they might realize could be easily taken away from them as their far right vote gets sucked away from them by the CHP or some other similar far right party that could actually elect their own members rather than relying on the CPC to “possibly” represent them.

Decentralization: Yeah, it the cons were open to decentralizing to cities, and if the NDP were open to decentralizing to the provinces, but I don’t believe, that while they both have a vision on this issue, their visions are very compatible.

Tax Relief: OK, maybe a little bit of agreement can be had on this issue, but only if the Cons were to accept lowering taxes in a way that were directed exclusively for poor and middle class … I can’t see the NDP falling for a “I’ll cut the tax on the poor if you also support cutting taxes for the big corps” kind of mugs game, where any tax savings for the people will be clawed back in “pay as you go” service cuts … the Cons might be induced to cut only the taxes on the poor if they felt it would help them in the long run to get the trust of the regular people so they could later on implement their corporate agenda.

SSM: The NDP shouldn’t even deal with members of the NDP who want to bargain with basic human rights, let alone screw around with the CPC on the issue … The only advantage I can see to progressives on even pretending to play along with the CPC on this issue is to expose their real agenda on human rights, and personally it would make me puke if the NDP ever even considered screwing around with human rights to gain political points.

Summary: Unless the cons get themselves a majority, with a majority of the votes, then I don’t see why any progressive party or even a party that justs pretends to be progressive (read the Liberals) should support the cons on any issue they bring to the table that is in any way at all is non progressive.

Harper’s reform package includes changes to the way Supreme Court appointments are made that would force them to go in front of parliamentary committees. In any case, I think that’s part of the NDP package too. There are several points on which the Conservative and NDP plans are in agreement.

In practical terms, maybe one of the current justices will retire in the next two years, so I’m not really seeing the “packing” happening.

This analysis is disappointingly naive. I honestly wanted to stop reading as soon as I read “Prime Minister Harper is not a scary prospect.”

Assuming that the Conservatives win a minority and are reined in by the other parties, odds are that they would win a majority in the following election at which point they have free reign. It’ll be Mike Harris all over again, except at the federal level.

Regarding same-sex marriage, the odds are that with a minority of the size the Liberals had in the last parliament, there would be enough votes between the Conservatives and the anti-gay Liberals to repeal same-sex marriage.

And lawsuits can tie up time and money, bankrupting the Liberal party, even if they’re not spurious but even if they’re not eventually won. They just have to have enough of a basis to proceed so that they’re not spurious; they don’t have to be good enough to eventually win.

thickslab,

I’m honestly not seeing how a minority win for the Conservatives would result in a majority win for them next time around. Are you suggesting that votes would bleed from the Bloc and the NDP to the Conservatives over those two hypothetical elections? Because that’s the only interpretation of your analysis that makes sense—it’s the resurgence of the Bloc and the NDP that are keeping either the Liberals or the Conservatives from getting a majority, not anything either of the big parties is doing.

I think votes would bleed from the Liberals to the conservatives once they see a Harper minority government that seems moderate because it’s controlled by the other parties.

And there are many things Harper can do that are dangerous and damaging without a majority - many of them regulatory, not requiring the approval of Parliament, and many of them such as same sex marriage that would probably pass in a reconfigured Parliament anyway.

Until the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >anyUntil the BQ declines to below 40 seats in Quebec the chances of >any

Respectfully, Thickslab, it’s this sort of thinking that could doom us to another four years of decrepid and decaying Liberal government. This is of no benefit to Canadians. And for the NDP to be effective, it needs to have this bargaining chip. If it wants to make a Liberal minority really work, it has to remind the party that a Conservative minority is equally possible.

And, respectfully, you really underestimate the intelligence of the voters, here. If Harper acts immoderately, the voters will see it, and they will respond accordingly. The moment he starts talking about a radical election platform, or starts doing radical things behind the backs of parliament, he will lose traction with moderate voters. They could go back to the Liberals, or they might well decide to try out the NDP.

Hey, it worked for Bob Rae after the Liberal-NDP informal coalition brought down Ontario’s 42-year-old Conservative dynasty.

Are Canadians really such timid, scared wimps?

It should be noted that the NDP proposed the EXACT same GST cut in 2000. While Layton may have reservations about it the NDP itself is not averse to it. Besides, several Liberals would vote for it too in all probability.

Robert: 8 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court are Liberal appointments. The ONE opening coming up is a Conservative appointment. Are you suggesting that the one remaining Conservative appointed judge should be replaced by a Liberal so that the ENTIRE Supreme Court is Liberal? That is ridiculous.

It’s funny that you should mention the Liberal-NDP coalition in Ontario, because we all know that the Liberals won the next election after that.

Re: Harper, of course he won’t act immoderately until he gets a majority. That’s why he’s doing his best to appear moderate during the election campaign. Remember Mike Harris? Did he mention downloading and Amalgamation? No, but he sure did it once he was in a position to.

Yes, the Liberals are corrupt, but better a Liberal minority controlled by opposition parties than Stephen Harper anywhere near the PMO.

I’m sorry, but that’s timid thinking.

James,

Fantastic analysis. Bang on and I have thought more than a few times in passing that this is the way to go.

ferrethouse,

It is irrelevant if 8 out of 9 were appointed by “Liberals” rather than “Conservatives”. This is not the United States. Most of our Justices are there because the truly deserve to be there - most have long and distinguished careers on the bench and have literally “worked their way up” from provincial courts through provincial Supreme Courts. Despite the nature of the appointment process, our SC Justices have been quite well accepted by all parties. The only ‘contraversy’ I can can recall was when Sopinka was appointed - mainly because he was a well know defence atorney and had not sat on the bench before.

Your whole idea that our court is “Liberal” or “Conservative” bears no resemblance to reality. You’ve been waching too much American TV. While I like the idea of testifying before a Parliamentary committee, I am very concerned about the process becoming the politically charged 3-ring circus it has in the US.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

It’s funny that you should mention the Liberal-NDP coalition in Ontario, because we all know that the Liberals won the next election after that.

Yes, except that the Liberals governed moderately and well, and so were rewarded with a major majority.

When they failed to live up to their promise, the electorate turned to their coalition partners in 1990 and swept in the NDP. The minority government of 1984-86 was fondly remembered by many Ontarians, and parties which cooperate here after the next election will be rewarded and punished accordingly, to the benefit of the nation.

Re: Harper, of course he won’t act immoderately until he gets a majority. That’s why he’s doing his best to appear moderate during the election campaign. Remember Mike Harris? Did he mention downloading and Amalgamation?

I remember Mike Harris well, and he was even more radical before he was elected than after it. Yes, he mentioned downloading. No, he didn’t mention amalgamation. Instead, he talked about dismantling Metropolitan Toronto into its six component parts, an arrangement that would have been much worse than what we see today. The public knew that his common sense revolution was revolutionary.

Harper won’t be able to get away with sneaking a revolution of his own through Canada’s back door. If he tries to be deceptive, we’ll hammer him. If he’s honest, and we respond, then ultimately we wanted the medicine he gives us.

Spoken by someone who doesn’t have to fear his rights being taken away if Harper wins.

We’ll make sure Harper takes no rights away. He still has to respect the charter, and we’ll make sure he respects the charter.

Frankly, if you want to protect SSM, the best way to go about it is to defeat Liberal MPs and elect New Democrats, especially in ridings where the Liberals broke party ranks. That includes several ridings in Toronto.

Sorry for the double post, but again your entire thesis rests on the presumtive case when sometime in the future where Conservatives have a majority government go “Mwa-ha-ha” and do BAD EVIL NASTY THINGS to people

So, because of the fear of some unspecified act in some unspecified future, you have to vote Liberal.

Nice Orwellian model there. A constant state of fear. Where has this been done recently? Hmmm?

First, as it’s been said before, the chances of any party forming a majority with the BQ doing well in Quebec is low. Former Liberal majorities occurred when Reform and Alliance voters split with PC’s. With the latter no longer an issue minority governments are our likely future for the time being, unless Quebec separates.

Second, you underestimate the Canadian voter.

Third, nice. You fell into the Liberal trap.

I didn’t fall into any trap. I’m not voting Liberal.

A lot of NDP voters seem to move to the Liberals to keep the Conservatives OUT, when the best way for NDP voters to get their issues dealt with is to vote for NDP candidates.

The idea of strategically voting Liberal even though you dislike them, in order to defend against the vandal hordes is to me appalling and plays to their worst instincts and only creates arrogance and petulance amongst the Liberal power brokers.

“Naa naa vote for us you have no choice, suckers!!! Have a beer and some popcorn, you plebes!!” That kind of voting allows them to continue to shit down our throats and smile while they do it.

Unlike the US we do have a multiparty system and there are other valid choices, be it the Green Party or the NDP. The difference between them and, say, Ralph Nader, is that in a parliamentary system there is a balance of power when there is no absolute majority.

What Bow correctly points out is that the results of that balance of power is served equally no matter if it is the Conservatives or Liberals that are in power. Given the continued arrogance of the Liberal ‘let’s pretend’ government vs. the hyperacute scrutiny that the Conservatives would face, which would be a better fit for the NDP?

Whenever I find myself speculating on a CPC/NDP alliance, I go back and read a few paragraphs of an old Stephen Harper essay and it soon goes away. If that doesn’t work, I just go and read Garth Turner’s blog:

ÔøΩThey may live in million-dollar houses, but this crowd is far from being financially secure. One man alluded to his $200,000+ salary, and his empty bank account. They are squeezed by property taxes and mortgage rates on one size, and a massive marginal tax rate on the other. There is little saved for retirement and disaster lurks in any pink slip.ÔøΩ

I just can’t see the NDP finding the humanity to lend that guy a hand up.

Imagine if the basic exemption for a family was indexed and over time raised to be at least at the poverty line. Easily affordable over time and a brilliant way for both the Conservatives and the NDP to agree on a tax cut. Why should the working poor pay taxes? It’s a tragedy that they do.

So, Mr $200K may not have a hand up, but the number of poor families out there DO, and given our record of increasing surpluses this would be a powerful antipoverty measure, much more so than your average election goodie.

Why should the working poor pay income taxes? The Liberals target tax cuts at the middle class, but a raise of the personal exemption benefits the poor most of all.

thickslab,

Exactly the same rights are at stake for me as are for you, but I’m still not afraid of Harper. As long as the Bloc and the NDP are strong, the Conservatives can’t get a majority. And as long as Harper doesn’t have a majority, Harper’s hands are tied unless he plays nice with the other parties. It’s not ideal, but it’s not scary, either.

Based on what Harper announced today in Quebec, the Bloc would be hard-pressed to not support them, at least with respect to the democratic deficit. It may also go toward resolving some of the sovereignty issues (I’m guessing, since I don’t have a clue what would or wouldn’t work to appease Quebec voters; however, returning some of the power to the provinces would definitely shut the AB separatists up).

There’s a reason Ralph Klein keeps harpooning Harper, ya know.

Exactly the same rights are at stake for me as are for you, but I’m still not afraid of Harper. As long as the Bloc and the NDP are strong, the Conservatives can’t get a majority. And as long as Harper doesn’t have a majority, Harper’s hands are tied unless he plays nice with the other parties. It’s not ideal, but it’s not scary, either.

Uh, guys? Not every Conservative is opposed to SSM, either. And think about it: for the CPC to get a majority, they’d have to elect MP’s from Quebec and get some penetration into urban areas. For Conservatives to get a majority, more socially-moderate MP’s have to get voted in as Conservatives, which changes the balance within the party.

If you’re inclined to think of so-cons as a problem with the CPC, a majority government makes it a self-correcting one.

I’m in strategic voting country - Edmonton Centre - and other than being pretty certain I won’t vote with my heart (NDP), I have no idea which way I’m going to go. I’m sure hoping there’s going to be a forum, because I think, as Darnian points out, one way to insure the Tories aren’t scary is to make sure non-scary Tories win some ridings. That’s likely to make or break my decision: figuring out if the local Tory is a scary Tory or not. I’d be happy to give the Liberals some bench time, they’ve certainly earned it, and one-party rule isn’t healthy for our democracy.

If I had a chance to get a New Democrat to Parliament to help hold that balance, I’d do it. What I really need is to find some sane Tory in a decent NDP/Liberal riding willing to vote-trade. Let the unholy alliance begin!

One problem is that the BQ will win at least 55 seats. That means the Liberals or Conservatives have to get bellow 100 seats for any coalition involving the NDP to have over half the seats.

Given that, I think whoever becomes PM will have to mix and match who they work with.

Don - you vote Tory in Edmonton Centre, and I’ll vote for Olivia Chow in Trinity Spadina. That’s about as tight of an NDP/Liberal race as you’ll find.

But how do I know you’ll hold up your end? :)

I’m a long-time conservative, but I would likely leave the party over the issue of electoral reform. Proportional representation does not necessarily provide a government that better reflects the will of the country. It’s easy to make seats proportional, but that tends to give minor parties disproportionate influence.

Consider this past minority parliament. Martin was looking at sending troops to Darfur to placate David Kilgour, a single MP. Under proportional representation, future parliaments would almost certainly be minorities, so that the Greens, the NDP, the Progressive Canadians, and other even less palatable groups would have influence far beyond their numbers or popular support.

PR would also almost guarantee that the Liberal party would be in power, since they would almost always have at least a third of the seats. The Bloc will have normally have about a fifth, so it becomes a Sisyphean struggle for another party or even coalition of parties actually to form government.

There is a significant difference between a minority government put forward through the first-past-the-post system, and one put forward by proportional representation.

The previous government had two parties (Liberals and Conservatives) looking for that one knock-out punch that could give them the majority victory. So you had cynical politics on the part of the Liberals, and cynical obstructionism on the part of the Conservatives.

It’s different if all the parties are aware that there is no sucker punch big enough that’s going to give them a majority. They know they have to work with coalition partners, and they’ll continue to have to work with coalition partners after the next election. The parties will moderate their tone, be more open to compromise, and Canadians will get much better government as a result.

And under proportional representation, the Bloc’s take on Parliament would drop from 55 seats to roughly 38. Again, better for Canada.

Interesting point ferrethouse, but I’ll do you one better Layton-wise.

We all know that Jack’s Ga-Ga for gun control but when the long-gun registry was passed (C-68) in 1995, the NDP caucus voted nay with one exception (Svend Robinson). Of course that was back in the days when the NDP could elect members in Saskatchewan and the interior of BC. If Jack wants to ever break out of his Vancouver/Winnipeg/Danforth ghetto he might give some thought to the considered votes of those NDP lifers. You know, MPs who have been in Parliament for longer than eighteen months.

James, I’ll add two other policy areas where the CPC and NDP can have common cause.

1. Post-secondary education.

A few years ago Jim Prentice (Calgary North Centre) called for the federal gov’t to cover tuition payments (to a max of $3000) for all students in accredited university and college programs. Politically popular and has the advantage of being good for national productivity (eventually).

1. Foreign Aid

CPC is big on refurbishing Canada’s badly tarnished international image. This has three pillars: increased defence spending, enhancing the role and status of the Dept of Foreign Affairs, and increased foreign aid expenditures. More focused aid, to be sure (as opposed to Chretiens “little dab will do ya” approach), but more aid at the same time.

Okay, sorry for interupting.

“More of that, and the Conservatives might re-open the debate on same-sex marriage, but faced with the combined opposition of NDPers, Blocquistes and pro-equal marriage Liberals, they wonÔøΩt have the numbers to carry the day.”

This is simply not true.

I addressed this issue on the blogs Canada website.

“Issues, such as gay marriage, are open to free votes. In such cases what matters is not the sum total of MPs of parties that back, say, gay marriage but rather the sum total of MPs that back, for example, gay marriage. As the aforementioned Conservative apologists pointed out, there is a large bloc of Liberal MPs opposed to SSM. (There is a world of difference between having the Conservative party brass talking up how SSM posses a threat to Canadian children and the homophobic dribble of a bunch of back bench MPS who are very slowly but surely being pushed out of the party (e.g., Kilger and O’Brien.)) Calgary Grit has suggested to me that these MPs are the most likely to be defeated. No such luck. The vast majority of these MPs are in solidly Liberal ridings, including many in Toronto. In all, only 9 of 32 (e.g., Zed, Savoy, Boshcoff, Bonin) stand even a remote chance of being defeated and only a couple are likely to be defeated. [32 is actually low. As the Conservatives pointed out those in Cabinet had to vote down party lines.] What this means is this that these MPs would be strong enough to withstand any pressure to vote down party lines and that if the Conservatives should they get around 125 seats they would have votes to doom, for one, gay marriage.”

As for the issue of “democratic reform”, the Conservatives favor a triple E senate and the NDP PR and that the senate be abolished. The two are at the opposite ends of the divide on the issue.

Now while you mention areas the Conservatives and NDP might be able to cooperate on various issues, you do not speculate as to how likely they would be in a position to support to a Conservative lead minority government. Given the polling numbers there is little reason to believe that the NDP could play king maker especially to a Conservative government. If the Conservatives were to form the next government, god forbid, they would most likely join with the Bloc in robbing the Federal government of power (addressing the fiscal imbalance is the word both use) and would join with the right wing of the Liberal party to cut taxes, increase military spending and impose a socially conservative agenda on the country.

Finally, Conservative government would table no socially progressive legislation and as such would represent a huge opportunity cost.

“Jack Layton has derided the Conservatives’ promise to cut the GST by a single percentage, but the fact remains that this tax cut benefits the working poor more than it benefits the rich., and you may have noticed that Jack hasn’t been deriding the Conservatives GST cut promise all that loudly.”

First, GST is a regressive tax. Meaning, it does not increase or decrease with the amount of income that one earns. You pay more GST as you purchase or procure more goods and services that have GST applied to them. Realistically, the bulk of low income families purchases are GST free items like mortgage payments, rent, and groceries.

Second, cutting GST by 2% seems like nothing to a specific individual but that is 30% of GST tax revenue gone. The reality of that $100-$400 of savings to low income families will be meaningless when government expenditures are cut and services are reduced. GST makes up approximately 15% of budgetary revenues. Last year, the government raked in $29.7 Billion in GST. Reduce that number by 30% and compare with our current budget surplus and tell me again if you think it’s a great idea.

Third, there are two groups that stand to receive a substantial benefit from GST. Business, and rich individuals that purchase the bulk of items that are taxes with GST.

Fourth, reducing taxes when we are in a growth stage is generally a bad idea. Expect some negative feedback from the Bank of Canada as they attempt to control inflation, they raised the interest rate by 25 basis points already. Do you think that increasing inflation (due to lower taxes), increased interest(due to rising inflation) rates will help low income families get loans or prosper. I don’t.

So please, think deeper before you proliferate the thought “but the fact remains that this tax cut benefits the working poor more than it benefits the rich.”

Third point. It’s “taxed” not taxes.