|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Electoral Coalitions
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
This thread is mainly aimed at Oz shipmates because you have The Coalition and preferential voting. I sort of understand that this allows the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party (they never get mentioned on the Ship) to compete on Election Day in each Electoral Division, er, Riding and then co-operate in the House of Representatives. This has been the arrangement since the 1920's, AIUI and the Preferential Vote was instituted to specifically allow it.
Now over to The Other Dominion, Canada. The last federal election was a blockbuster. For the first time the federal New Democratic Party of Canada edged the federal Liberals as Official Opposition and reduced the Liberals to Third Party status while the Tories (who are our equivalent to your Liberals) got a majority. The NDP displaced the Liberals decades ago in BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and sort of in Nova Scotia just recently.
The federal Liberals have governed Canada in great long spans and formed the government for 73 of 100 years in the 20th Century. But lately the Great Liberal Machine has been sputtering, for the first time since 1867 two leaders in a row failed to become Prime Minister.
Now Liberal hopes are pinned on Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre Trudeau, the great Liberal icon (some say demigod). Party Leaders in Canada are selected by party leadership convention and the Liberals, like the other two parties, moved to a one-member, one-vote system. But the Liberals (strangely) created a "Supporter" class which isn't full membership and is free. It was a vain attempt to echo the US Primary system with all its coverage but it doesn't fit in a Westminster parliamentary system.
Now the figures have come out about who will vote for the Liberal membership vote on April 14th: 44,000 full members and 84,000 Supporters. It is believed 45,000 of those Supporters were signed up by advocacy groups who favour Liberal co-operation with the NDP and Greens, the provenance of the 35,000 remaining supporters is unknown.
The Liberals race is Justin Trudeau's to lose but with that dynamic there is an outside chance that Joyce Murray, the Electoral Cooperation candidate, could pull off an outside win.
The NDP has voted against electoral co-operation and is determined to continue to ride the winds of fortune (I'm an NDP member). The NDP is also the larger party. Electoral Cooperation usually means the junior party throwing itself at the feet of the bigger party, or so it seems to me. Or at least the junior party conceding that it will always run third. That's unprecedented in Canada but ISTM that the Liberal/National Coalition works on that basis.
My main question is what effect do coalition or electoral cooperation agreements have on the weaker party and is it a tacit admission that you will never win government by yourself? What are the practical effects in Australia?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
My main question is what effect do coalition or electoral cooperation agreements have on the weaker party and is it a tacit admission that you will never win government by yourself? What are the practical effects in Australia?
The National Party was originally the Country Party - an agrarian party of the farmers, by the farmers, and for the farmers. They renamed themselves "National" instead of "Country" in the hope - vain as it turns out - that they might become a nation-wide conservative party that could win government, but that never happened.
In very rural states, like Queensland back in the 20th century, the Country/National Party could win government, at least as the senior party. But in most states - and certainly in the state with the largest population, NSW, the majority of the people live in the big city (Sydney has 60% of the state's population, and nearby Newcastle and Wollongong hold another 15% between them - jokingly one might say that NSW stands for Newcastle-Sydney-Wollongong rather than New South Wales). So the agrarian National Party just represents the smaller block of rural seats in Parliament, while Liberal and Labor fight over the block of many urban, especially metropolitan, seats. The Nats have no chance of winning government in their own right - certainly not in NSW or Federally.
Within the Coalition, though, there are members of the Liberal party who feel that the Nats wield too much influence over the Coalition, especially in proportion to their numerically small voter base. What gives the Nats their power is that the numbers of supporters may be small, but they are geographically concentrated and can win precious seats in the House of Representatives. The Greens, even with a similar number of first preferences, are too geographically dispersed to have much chance of winning a seat, except in a couple of inner urban areas. So the Nats have far more representatives per 100,000 voters in the HR than the Greens do.
Back in the 20th century there were also gerrymanders that generally favoured the Nats by allowing much smaller electorates in rural areas than in urban areas. This arrangement, I believe, had also favoured Labor back in the days when unions of sheep-shearers and other rural workers were an important source of Labor party support.
In some states and territories, the Liberals and the National Party have amalgamated (e.g. Queensland and the Northern Territory) and from time to time there is an outbreak of questions and speculation about a nation-wide merger. Of course, some Liberals would just prefer to drive the National Party into oblivion by winning three-way contests (Labor vs Liberal vs National).
This is all off the top of my head, so a better informed Aussie may come along and contradict it all.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I sort of understand that this allows the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party (they never get mentioned on the Ship) to compete on Election Day in each Electoral Division, er, Riding and then co-operate in the House of Representatives.
Well, no. Electoral contests between the two parties are fairly rare. In general one or the other puts forward a candidate, not both.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
So what influence has this had on the Nats, not being the Senior Party (except in Queensland)? Has it made 'em crazy or has it taken away their fire for winning? Or has the Coalition come to be a merger in all but name?
In Canada electoral co-operation gets bandied about on the Left where the pundits see the Liberals, NDP and Greens compete for the left-wing progressive vote.
My take is that the Liberals have not been a progressive party on economic issues since the early 1980's and their significant Blue Liberal/Business Liberal wing won't have anything to do with progressive economic measures.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I shall answer later, when I'm not rushing off to get ready, but: (i) they are properly called Electoral Divisions here, and commonly called electorates - I've never heard to word Riding used outside local government elections; and (ii) the Nationals, and the Country Party, were always crazy and need no stimulus.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I used the word Electoral Division ![[Biased]](wink.gif) . The English word for an electoral district in Canada is Riding, however. The Supreme Court of Canada had to rule on a contested election result in Etobicoke Centre after the last election, and they used the term extensively in their ruling.
quote:
Canada is divided into "electoral districts" (commonly known as "ridings"): Charter, s. 3, and Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 40, 51 and 51A.
and then later:
quote:
In the circumstances, the fact that votes were cast at the wrong polling station within the riding was a technical or trivial deficiency and not an irregularity within the meaning of s. 524(1)(b).
It was an informal word before, but as the Supreme Court used it it is now a Proper Word.
The original judgment is here.
The term goes back to the British North America Act, 1867, aka the Constitution Act, 1867. The First Schedule of the Act defined the electoral divisions for Ontario, based on county lines. Large counties were divided into Ridings for electoral purposes. See here.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
With respect to ridings, I have managed to win two bets on the word's origin-- it's from the old Norse for the three-part division of Yorkshire (thridings). I encourage such forms of taking advantage of colleagues as it assists them with their education.
How coalitions get structured is not automatic; there are no rules. Political circumstances and personalities often determine singular arrangements-- note how one very small party in the Irish inter-party government of 1948 refused to have General Mulcahy, head of the largest party in the coalition, as premier, and so John Costello ended up as Taoiseach, to his annoyance and surprise. There is also a Swedish case from the 1970s (I do not have the particulars at hand) when one of the smallest coalition partners headed the government. Tails can wag dogs, it seems.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Ms. Murray's platform for the Liberals is for them to co-operate with the NDP and for both to run only one candidate together in each riding. As this is what I understand happens in much of Oz, where the Nats and Liberals run in parallel and turn into a Coalition in the House of Representatives, why speculate when you can ask how it actually works in real life. Which is why I started the thread.
I'll be at the NDP Convention in April when the Liberal Leader will be announced. On the outside chance it isn't the Dauphin (Trudeau), I was curious about the mechanics.
I though the Preferential Ballot was so that Liberal/Nat voters could vote for their party of choice and then the other, and still be sure they didn't help the Labor candidate.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Ms. Murray's platform for the Liberals is for them to co-operate with the NDP and for both to run only one candidate together in each riding. As this is what I understand happens in much of Oz, where the Nats and Liberals run in parallel and turn into a Coalition in the House of Representatives, why speculate when you can ask how it actually works in real life. Which is why I started the thread.
*snip* I though the Preferential Ballot was so that Liberal/Nat voters could vote for their party of choice and then the other, and still be sure they didn't help the Labor candidate.
Our Ozite shipmates, bronzed and thirsty from their surfboards and their wallaby hunts, will doubtless answer this question from their own history.
In many places in Canada (e.g., Manitoba in the 1920s, and Edmonton and Calgary) PR by STV was brought in to ensure that the Wicked Reds did not swamp the legislature by taking all of the urban seats. In both places it worked very well but was ended in the 1960s as: 1) it was felt to be old-fashioned, 2) it really annoyed all the party establishments for, although they could guarantee seats, they could not guarantee which ones, and 3) an occasional Moscow-line Communist would get elected in the 'Peg.
I think that SPK, like many, greatly overestimates the importance of ideology in Liberal voting although this is a rapidly shifting area, given the Tory move into the RC vote. Those who are uber-geeks in the field of electoral leanings will likely go ape over this recent article, which outlines the regional second preferences for each of the major political parties.
I do not see how riding associations of either the Liberals or NDP will agree to bow out but (especially if Joyce Murray shows well and the pre-election polls are tight), it might well be that riding associations will find that they are asked to send their volunteers into a neighbouring seat and to not work very hard in their own. In 2015, we will see if my long-held prediction of the NDP and Liberal leaders sitting down with rictus-like smiles of reluctant collaboration will hold true...
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I never mentioned ideology. What got me started was a newspaper article stating those "Supporters" may not be all they were cracked up to be, and many did get "volunteered" by special interest lobby groups, many devoted to NDP-Liberal co-operation. So there are not guarantees.
This time, the "pur et dur" Liberals, the full Members, are not the only people voting and may be swamped by the Supporters. It's not the same this time. But I thought the Supporter idea would blow up in the Grits faces from the get-go.
I know my Riding Association and they'd choke before collaborating with the Liberals. As the old guard tells me, the NDP is a bottom-up organization and a party of the people. You can't impose change from the top.
The only "ideology" is tactics, co-operation by running dual-endorsed candidates or some such arrangement. The NDP has already said no repeatedly.
But having observed many Liberals, many have the the "ideology" of wanting nothing to do with the NDP.
But like I said, the Liberals haven't been economic progressives, or given two cents to that area since the early 1980's. You've stopped straddling the middle economically. But this is yet another facet of the fact that it's not the 1970's anymore, despite the Dauphin's determination to bring them back.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I never mentioned ideology.
Ah, but you said: My take is that the Liberals have not been a progressive party on economic issues since the early 1980's and their significant Blue Liberal/Business Liberal wing won't have anything to do with progressive economic measures., which sounded like ideology to me. Business Liberals are not a big phenomenon these days outside certain religious communties, as business types prefer Real Coke, as opposed to Pepsi. This may shift as the Conservatives lose credibility but such changes will only be analysable later-- my own business connexions have not mentioned much about how they view Mr Mulcair, so enamoured are they of Messrs Harper & Flaherty.
The 308 article is interesting in that there are significant regional variations. Liberals in BC will split toward Conservatives, but in other regions, much more to the NDP.
I would agree that neither party's grass roots would voluntarily agree to Xmas cards, let alone collaboration, but that circumstances can sometimes change things and quiet collaboration might (emphasize the subjunctive) be how it happens. Certainly there will be little focussed thinking on this before 2014. It will be interesting to see how the supporters category works out on leadership-voting day.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
By Business Liberal or Blue Liberal, I mean the John Manleys, Frank McKennas and Paul Martins of this world. The people that from my POV were in charge of the Liberal Party since the 1995 Budget. Or Martha Hall Findlay, or anyone referred to by Paul Adams in his article at New Year's on "The Liberals Strange Quest for the Centre-Right" (alas now locked).
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
SPK , in theory, the voting system in place in the lower houses allows the coalition partners each to run a candidate with an exchange of preferences. In practice, that does not happen very often at all. I can't recall the last time it occurred at a Commonwealth level, and the last occasion in NSW (from memory) was in the 1970s. Even then, that was a rarity. There are joint tickets for the Senate and the upper chambers of the 5 of the 6 states where such chambers exist.
There are really very few policy differences between the Liberals and National parties, unlike the Canadian scene you describe. Running multiple candidates splits the funds raised, with little gain and much room for preference slippage. The 70s occasion I can recall was when the Liberal candidate had strong support in a substantial city at one end of the electorate, but not much beyond that. The Country Party candidate (it was still called Country Party then) was popular with the rural voters, but not as much in the urban area. Both ran, and the Liberal came out ahead after preferences were counted. He was the only candidate at the next election. Similar personal considerations were at play in other elections. I have a very vague memory of a few occasions where the Country Party ran 2 or more candidates, allowing electors the choice it was unwilling to make itself.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
So what influence has this had on the Nats, not being the Senior Party (except in Queensland)? Has it made 'em crazy or has it taken away their fire for winning? Or has the Coalition come to be a merger in all but name?
The answer tends to be that the Liberals treat it as a merger in all but name sometimes, until the Nationals angrily remind them that it isn't.
The area where the Nationals tend to assert their independence the most is trade. Given that farmers are a large part of their constituency, they have quite different views on some trade issues from their city-business coalition partners.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
I did a quick check, because there was a bun fight between the Coalition partners as to which would run in our neighbouring division, Hume, where the sitting Liberal MP is retiring. Under the Coalition agreement, both parties are entitled to contest any seat except where there is a sitting Coalition MP, but they aim to minimise it because of the reasons already stated, such as cost. So in September, only one NSW seat, currently held by Labor, will be contested by both Coalition partners.
SPK, your take on preferential voting is close, but the ability of the Coalition to compete if they so choose is an effect, not the reason. Preferential voting removes the need for voters to vote tactically; if I know that my division will ultimately be a fight between Liberal and Labor, I can still give a first preference vote to a minor party or a local independent. Smaller parties aim to gather enough votes, whether first or subsequent preferences but ahead of both majors, so that when they are one of three candidates remaining in the count, they are not last. If a major party comes last then they will be eliminated and the subsequent transfer of preferences may fall right to get the minor party over the line.
In the UK, I voted for X in local elections, but in national elections I voted Y; in fact, the vote for X completely dropped away in favour (mainly) of Y, because Y had the only realistic chance of defeating Z. After it paid off, it had the result of permanently affecting votes for X at the local level.
But here, I can preference X, Y and Z in that order. I can even vote 1 for a single issue candidate or the equivalent of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Eventually, if needed, my two-party-preferred choice will have an effect.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
First, thanks all for the great information. The Ship is the only place I know where I can strike up an intelligent conversation comparing Canadian and Australian party practices. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Second, Blue Liberal/Business Liberal to me, Augustine, are the 30-50% of Liberals whose second preferred party is not the NDP. The Greens, FWIW, count as Environmental Red Tories. Scratch the surface and you'll find some reason they don't like the NDP.
On the other hand, Electoral Co-operation would be dead-on-arrival in my riding. The NDP came third by only 200 votes and in all of our neighbouring Ridings, we came in second, which is unprecedented for Central-Eastern Ontario. None of us want to give up a fighting chance. Even coming in second is a big win because it boosts your credibility.
Canadian parties also put great stock in running 308 (soon to be 338) candidates nationally, which is a full slate with a candidate in every riding. Of course this leads to some derision that some candidates are "telephone poles" (poteaux in French) but the NDP found that those poles were actually good quality MP's when elected.
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) Ruth-Ellen "Vegas" Brosseau.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
SPK writes: quote:
Even coming in second is a big win because it boosts your credibility.
No. It's not a win. It's a loss. There is no silver medal.
There is, however, Stephen Harper with a big smile and a cat in his lap, both purring away.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
SPK writes: quote:
Even coming in second is a big win because it boosts your credibility.
No. It's not a win. It's a loss. There is no silver medal.
There is, however, Stephen Harper with a big smile and a cat in his lap, both purring away.
Sorry, cannot and will not agree with that. The NDP getting to be Official Opposition and relegating the Liberals to third place in 2011 was a win, a big step forward and had the great gift of Official Opposition status. Breaking through in Quebec was gigantic. The crowds at Jack Layton's victory speech certainly understood this.
Power is not an end, but a means to an end.
Shall we ask the Liberal Riding Associations in BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba what it means to always run third in Tory/NDP races?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
SPK-- you and I will never agree on this. I believe that it is simple; the day after the election, one is the MP (a win) or one is not (a loss). You do not see crowds in the streets chanting: "We're Number Two! We're Number Two!"
Indeed, power is a means to an end. The absence of it is an absence of a means to an end.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
The Dippers are always quick to claim a moral victory (read: so far down the list they need a flashlight to find themselves), or, if they do win, are so thrilled they wet their collective pants. Vide: Ontario, 1990 and Quebec, 2011. We all know what happened in Ontario 1995 et seq. and what will happen next federal election et seq.
Indeed, as far as federal politics is concerned, the slow death of the NDP is already starting.
The reality of Quebec politics require this.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Riiight....
Not what the polls say, and those MP's who have crossed the floor were all union old-timers who were really into Separatism. The young bucks, who everyone thought would be a circus, have all turned to be the most reliable and steady.
If the NDP is such a lame duck with power, how come they are in power in Nova Scotia and Manitoba and look to crush the provincial Liberals in BC in a few months (not the first time in power in BC either).
There is life west of Thunder Bay.
quote:
SPK-- you and I will never agree on this. I believe that it is simple; the day after the election, one is the MP (a win) or one is not (a loss). You do not see crowds in the streets chanting: "We're Number Two! We're Number Two!"
Jack Layton's death would have been a nonevent had he not recently raised the NDP to Number 2. I seem to remember a fair size of crowds.
I believe in playing the Long Game, with steady progress and where setbacks happen and are surmounted.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The long game may be fun, SPK, but most of us live in the short game. Offered a choice between ramshackle coalitions or unstable minorities for the next ten years against the possibility of an NDP majority sometime in the reign of King Charles III.... you must forgive me if I prefer to play the short game. The honour given Jack at his death was tribute to his personal courage and the comfort which many voters felt with him, not to the numbers.
I recall sitting last election night with a former colleague (long a Tory until Elmer Mackay's capitulation to the Harper gang) and he noted that, as Official Opposition with a Conservative majority, the NDP would have almost none of the power they had previously as No.3 in a minority. Still, they would now have Stornoway.
We both agreed, and I still feel this way, that the only good result of the last general election was the appearance of talented young MPs from Québec and the fading of the faded Bloc-- these two facts remain the only redeeming factors of the current situation. I have watched the young fence posts from Québec and Canadians should be happy that they have such conscientious and hard-working representatives-- other parties should be embarrassed that they don't.
But to return to the OP. One of the differences between Oz and Canada is that, in the southern realm of the wallaby, party leaders are elected by caucus and need to maintain their position by ensuring the support of parliamentarians. In Canada, they have a mandate from the wider party (John Turner kept his job in 1988 by insisting on this point). Given this dynamic, Canadian inter-party negotiations would have a different character, and would likely be more leader-driven. There will be some interesting kidney punches and high-sticking should Messrs Mulcair and Trudeau have to hammer out an accord of some sort.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Brad Lavigne had an interesting article last year in IRPP about the NDP strategy, and there was a committee struck to initiate high-level coalition discussions with the Liberals if there was another minority.
We'll have to disagree about Jack, because I maintain that if he returned after 2011 with only Mulcair's seat in Quebec and the usual haul in the rest of the country, the reaction would have been far more muted because far less people would have voted for him and taken an interest.
It was that he died, like Moses, within sight of the Promised Land that generated the reaction that we saw. Without the breakthrough in Quebec it would have been far less romantic.
Still the road to government for the NDP has always required two steps:
1) Get more seats than the Liberals, then
2) Trounce the Tories (and the Bloc as necessary).
Last election achieved Step 1 and half of Step 2. The NDP can and does have proven track record of running in NDP/Tory races, that's the norm out West.
Anyway, like any normal party, the goal of the NDP is to get more votes and seats for itself, not run a permanent third to occasionally control the balance of power, which is as reliable as quicksand and appears and disappears at a moment's notice.
quote:
I recall sitting last election night with a former colleague (long a Tory until Elmer Mackay's capitulation to the Harper gang) and he noted that, as Official Opposition with a Conservative majority, the NDP would have almost none of the power they had previously as No.3 in a minority. Still, they would now have Stornoway.
We both agreed, and I still feel this way, that the only good result of the last general election was the appearance of talented young MPs from Québec and the fading of the faded Bloc-- these two facts remain the only redeeming factors of the current situation. I have watched the young fence posts from Québec and Canadians should be happy that they have such conscientious and hard-working representatives-- other parties should be embarrassed that they don't.
Is that a hint of partisanship and ideology I smell there? And I think you mean Peter, not Elmer.
Anyway, the interesting thing if the NDP and Liberals ever have to hammer out an accord is who gets Finance and Justice. Finance because it's so important and Justice because that controls judicial nominations*. ISTM the Liberals would keel over at losing judicial nominations.
*For Oz shipmates, especially the lawyers, in Canada the Federal Government appoints all judges to provincial Superior Courts (=State Supreme Courts), Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The PM names the Supremes, the Minister of Justice handles the rest of the judgeships, of which there are a thousand or so in Canada.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Quite right-- I meant Peter. I met Elmer socially many decades ago and the name has stuck with me ever since. I have quite forgotten the name of Peter's dog, who provided him with solace when he was dumped.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
But to return to the OP. One of the differences between Oz and Canada is that, in the southern realm of the wallaby, party leaders are elected by caucus and need to maintain their position by ensuring the support of parliamentarians. In Canada, they have a mandate from the wider party (John Turner kept his job in 1988 by insisting on this point). Given this dynamic, Canadian inter-party negotiations would have a different character, and would likely be more leader-driven. There will be some interesting kidney punches and high-sticking should Messrs Mulcair and Trudeau have to hammer out an accord of some sort.
Kevin Rudd lost his position because the parliamentary party, the union movement and the party machine all lost confidence in him, although he had then, and still has, the support of the wider community. Of course, the only formal say in the leadership is that of the caucus, but members of caucus do listen* to what is said by the wider party. Ms Gillard has the support of caucus and the others, but has simply been unable to persuade the electorate of her virtues.
* the best euphemism I can think of at this hour of a difficult day.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
William Lyon Mackenzie-King was elected by the Liberals a leadership Convention, not the Caucus, in 1919 after the party had broken apart completely during the Conscription Crisis in 1917. The Liberals fractured badly on linguistic lines. It had to be that way because there was no functional Liberal Caucus to speak of.
Since then the NDP originated the idea of one-member one-vote and has used it for years. The Conservatives started using One-Member One-Vote in 2003. The Liberals gave in this time around and us it too. Leadership conventions are a thing of the past, it seems.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I had read an earlier version of Brad Lavigne's article a few months before it came out and thought that he had quite quite glossed over three items critical to the NDP's success in Québec: 1) internal weaknesses of the Bloc, and its failing ability to maintain a storyline/ narrative in Québec ( c'est le same-old same-old, as I overheard on the 37 bus in Gatineau), the unimaginable and really quite unbelievable chaos of candidate nomination in Québec (which I think was responsible for the high quality of candidates!) and ensuing frantic and effective candidate training and mentoring, and Layton's brilliant performance on Tout le Monde en Parle (an extraordinarily widely-watched Sunday night talk and entertainment programme on French-speaking CBC). Along with the unlikeability of PM Harper and the Dark Count, it was a perfect storm.
Almost every one of the winning conditions and preparatory work which he mentions had been there, on and off, for years. I would love to see a Québec-view insider account of that election--
As a mini-tangent, the election of four McGill undergraduates drove the university to extend their a policy of leave for academic staff elected to legislatures, to undergraduates, who can now return to complete their BAs when they are finished with their careers in Parliament.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
I just went over the riding fundraising numbers; I downloaded the numbers from Elections Canada and spend hours turning them into a useful list. A few ridings showed surprising financial strength, most though were moribund. Our current Dear Leader's riding only had $6,000 in donations. The rest may have been donations direct to the candidate, which don't show up on riding numbers.
Other Party Weakness is a party of any breakthrough or victory. Jean Chretien would not have won in 1993 if the old Progressive Conservatives hadn't been unpopular to the point of being toxic.
The Bloc suffered the same fate as the Creditistes, their fathers in spirit. I was not surprised to see it happen, I just didn't think it would be the NDP's hands on the knife.
Further to TLMP, Ruth-Ellen Brosseau has been on there, I watched a clip on youtube where she appeared at the same time as Gilles Duceppe, who did NOT look happy to see her. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
AS for the likeability of Justin, he has a habit of putting his foot in it. Interview with Franc-Tireurs.
The fun starts halfway through where he states "that Albertans have captured our social-economic and political agenda, and Canada is better served with more Quebeckers in Ottawa than Albertans" and goes on to say that the best Prime Ministers of the 20th Century were from Quebec.
Thanks Justin, you just made my job a lot easier. Those ideas are toxic in this riding. The Government of Canada is for all Canadians, by all Canadians.
Did his halo get in the way of the vetting?
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
