An article in the Toronto Star (here) suggested that the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP should agree to a temporary ceasefire for the next election. The specifics of this non-aggression pact envisioned by the Star are:
- In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.
- No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.
- Anyone who uses the word “Coalition” from either party would be immediately killed.
- The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.
- The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.
I have written about my opposition to PR (here) and the continuing existence of the Green Party (here) in the past but the idea of some soft of non-Conservative alliance has been tempting.
The NDP are fond of accusing the Liberals of hating them more than we hate Conservatives. Personally, I don't hate members of the CPC, NDP or BQ but I do disagree with many of their positions and many of their tactics.
What I find agreeable about the Star's alliance proposal:
The Liberals and the NDP are too competitive over issues we agree upon. When it comes to the environment, social welfare, immigration, the arts and crime we should really be working together. The division between the Liberal Party/NDP/Bloc on these issues has allowed Stephen Harper to get away with his narrow minded agenda.
The fighting between the Liberal Party and the NDP has also split the vote in many ridings allowing Conservative candidates to win, this is how Prime Minister Harper has been able to stay in government for four years.
The fact that the alliance would end immediately after the election would be helpful as it would calm some of the fears the CPC would try and stir up among Canadians.
What I find disagreeable about the Star alliance proposal:
Proportional representation is not the answer and it is also not Liberal policy. Proportional representation weakens democracy by putting all its emphasis on the political parties, putting unelected party members in parliament (as some are chosen off a "list) and creating huge ridings that are disconnected from the voters.
Basing an alliance on a concession to the NDP would make the Liberal Party look weak.
Many voters would be turned off by what they would see as a subversion of democracy. In my riding Olivia Chow is the MP and if the Liberal Party didn't run a candidate I would consider protest voting.
The Liberal Party needs all the money it can get and not running candidates in ridings means not getting the subsidy.
You can't just expect voters to vote the Liberal/NDP in their riding automatically. Voter turnout could go down (which means another Con victory) or those voters could vote Conservative.
The Equivocator's Solution:
What I would actually like to see is the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party pick 3 issues and sign a "Joint Policy Declaration." This would entail each of these parties negotiating a compromise solution on three or so big issues that we almost agree upon. The parties/leaders have months to hammer out the details. This would let the parties change the debate on 3 issues, it would generate positive free media and make the Liberals/NDP look bipartisan. All of the effects take positive attention away from Stephen Harper while ensuring that the public debate is not in his favour on the issues he is so wrong on while highlighting how the Prime Minister has been a partisan boor for four long years.
The issues I would select would be: crime, the environment and health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Uranowski
Become a fan of this blog on the Facebook or join my RSS feed by pressing one of the buttons somewhere on the right side of this blog ----->
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
No thanks if Liberals want a cease fire they can vote NDP. I see no difference between the Conservatives and Liberals in policy. We have one progressive option in Canada now the NDP.
Given how entrenched parties are anyway, I don't consider your criticism of PR to be viable. I don't disagree with your criticism, but PR would still be superior to what we have now.
I may prefer a run-off system, where there is a vote until someone gets 50%, knocking off contenders based upon some of criteria. I have used a preferential voting method (the GPC uses one internally), and like it, but I'd rather have multiple voes rather than a single ranked voted. I want to see the remaining candidates respond to the results, and perhaps reshape their platform to reflect voter wants. This also pushes against the current blah policy homogeneity.
I think it would be interesting if the per-vote subsidy stayed local, or if it were replaced with a flat rate going to the local candidate.
Iggy will never go for an alliance.
I agree with Mark. Our Members of Parliament are invisible as individuals and largely viewed by the public as cogs of the political party to which they belong. The media, parliamentary antics, and national campaigns have all framed our political system as being party vs. party in the fight for governance - whereas in reality, it's individual vs. individual for representation of their constituency.
Given this shift, FPTP does more to enable misrepresentation and confuse voters than it does reflect the current political attitude. We need reform of our electoral system or we need to reform parliamentary politics and the PMO. Neither will happen easily or without a fight.
In the mean-time, an 'alliance' between the NDP and LPC may have hidden implications - what does this look like to the undecided voter? Will not having an NDP candidate in a riding where there is a LPC incumbent or strong LPC candidate make a vote for that Liberal easier? Or will it be perceived as a nefarious scheme to grab power at democracy's expense? Given the CPC spin on the Dec. 08 Coalition and the ignorance the public showed about how little they understand our parliamentary democracy; I believe any agreement between the LPC and NDP that isn't a merger of the parties, will drive undecided voters to either stay at home (which empowers CPC votes) or vote with the governing party to keep the status quo.
That being said, I find the proposal interesting and tempting as a progressive voter. I also find it interesting that a Dipper proposed this arrangement.
Your criticism of proportional representation is understandable from the Ontario referendum, but not if you learn more. The Law Commission of Canada proposed an open-list MMP model where all MPs have faced the voters. No unelected MPs. No MPs in office merely by their rank on a province-wide list.
http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2008/12/what-would-proportional-house-of.html
I find it hard to understand why Liberals, at least Liberals outside Toronto, would oppose letting Liberal voters elect 26 more MPs from regions where they are now unrepresented or under-represented: nine more from the West, ten more from Ontario outside the GTA, and seven more from Quebec outside Montreal. With the open-list system, those regional MPs would be the regional candidates who get the most votes on the regional ballot.
I like the 3 idea philosophy you propose. The fact is, if most of Parliament from Center to Left can agree on something that the far Right is very wrong on, it can gain momentum for these ideas - AGAINST HARPER.
And that's the key right there. In Parliament of the 70s and 80s (and 60s) the NDP and Liberals often worked from the same standpoint on a variety of issues. The Conservatives were "left out in the cold", and their ideas were pushed to the fringe in some cases. This is even MORE true of the current Reform-Conservative iteration.
Right now, a general mood in the public is "they're all the same". Harper can take advantage of such public confusion, by simply presenting a weak "lip-service" type of platform that is usually technically the opposite of what a sane party would propose, then selling the lie. By selling the idea through the pulpit of "strong leadership" and the "stay the course" crap, he get's his way.
To align the public against Harper, we WILL need strong agreement between the opposition parties on select KEY issues. It does little good for the Opposition to continue to detract from the goal by sniping at one another. Yes the Bloc and NDP would wish to supplant the Liberals, but in their hapless quest to do so, they only hurt their OWN left of center positions more and more, as the "center" continues to get pushed to the right, and true dialogue only begins to discuss grades of how much to the right a policy will be.
This day will come. Even with the NDP in a Coalition with the Conservatives right now, there is only so much more they can take... When the Spring rolls around, they will pull the plug, and with 3 parties speaking against Harper, the public and media will see differently from when only the Liberals seemed to want an election.
Good true opposition takes time. A few months will pass, but there WILL be an election, and momentum WILL build as a result of Opposition agreement on some key policy areas (whether they do this consciously, or not).
Dylan - Any sort of proportional or mixed representation would give MPs even less power. The list MPs would be picked by party leaders and would not be accountable to voters directly.
And even if you split the ballot local/party (which isn't for certain), by assigning seats based on party vote, you're perpetuating the image that you vote for the party rather than an individual (because you're assigning MPs based on party vote).
Let's try this one more time: Calgary Grit says "The list MPs would be picked by party leaders and would not be accountable to voters directly."
In the models I mentioned above, the additional regional MPs would be picked by the voters. Take Calgary. If people voted as they did on October 14, 2008, Liberal voters in Calgary and Southern Alberta would have elected two MPs, not none. Which two regional candidates would have gotten the most votes on the regional ballot?
Maybe Jennifer Pollock from Calgary and Michael Cormican from Lethbridge? You tell me.
Post a Comment