Cooperation in politics...
It is not easy to chart a new course. Unquestionably it is far easier to do the same old things over and over.
In Canadian political terms, the old and safe route is to beat up on all the other parties (constantly) while pointing out that only your party is virtuous. It shows the proper team spirit. My team versus your team. Sports analogies abound. It is a nice simple message. The party members love it.
The problem is the voters do not like it. Voters know it is a lot of stuff and nonsense. Voters, the public, are not very likely to be members of political parties. In fact, in recent surveys, more than 80% of Canadians have never belonged to a political party. What those voters, the majority of Canadians, would like is a way, despite this dreadful first past the post system, to see their views and values reflected in the House of Commons that gets elected.
There is a new book out called Two Cheers for Minority Government by political scientist, Peter Russell. In it he makes the case that Minority Governments are a more democratic option than "false majorities" – those governments with a majority of seats, but a minority of the popular vote. He also makes the case against the growth of the Imperial Prime Minister’s Office. On both counts, it is a book worth reading.
He also reviews the few halting efforts at cooperation in Canadian politics and the many examples internationally. It is in descriptions of international cooperation that the Green Party gets most frequently mentioned. These efforts are quite stable and produce good results.
We need to find a new way of doing things in Canada despite the limitations of first past the post. It will not be easy. The easy route, the team mentality, is not an option for me. I know what will happen -- increase in divisive politics and leaders who cannot win the trust of the public. If we keep doing the same thing over and over, why would we expect a different result?
The different result is only possible if we actually do things differently.
The result I want is real action to address the climate crisis before it is too late. I want a new approach to peacekeeping and international security that puts nuclear disarmament at the top of the priority list. We need a democratic government, made up of all the MPs and not one Imperial Prime Minister. We need a parliament that will respect human rights, women’s rights, and make social justice a priority. We need Greens in Parliament. But not so much that we should trade off on the real goals of survival.
Taking a new approach implies risks. We can never compromise our principles. We can never accept something less than real reductions to avoid a global concentration of 425 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Some limits are political. Others are real and irreversible.
The team mentality is an anachronism. The voters see it as a useless vestige. Members of all political parties need to examine the utility of blind partisanship. Democracy requires that we leave it behind.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
Search
Email Updates:
Comments
Churchill had it right
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
Democracy - as invented by the Greeks 2500 years ago and perfected, painfully, over the millenia since - is a vibrant conflict of ideas. We think hard about the problems at hand, conceive solutions, then try to convince the majority of our fellow citizens that our solutions are best. Inevitably, this involves pointing out the inferiority of the solutions offered by others. Done well, this brings out the best in all parties. Done badly, it is demeaning.
Political parties are, by definition, "parti-san". There are dozens of non-partisan progressive organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc.) The Green Party is the political wing of this movement. We have a unique mission: to play the FPTP game - and find a way to win.
With 10% in popular support, the Greens should have more than 30 seats in the next parliament. But I don't see the other parties making room for us voluntarily. We will have to earn our place at the table by competing hard. Oops, that's a sports metaphor :-)
John Ogilvie
GPC Federal Council Member
Seeking the GPC nomination in Ottawa West Nepean (against John Baird)
Candidate for GPO Deputy Leader
Cooperation versus competition
The Liberals, NDP, and Bloc all claim to want to take serious action on the climate crisis. Among them, they hold a majority of the seats. And yet...no action on the climate crisis, not counting the Cons backwards steps and obstruction.
We need to come together around a progressive agenda, and we need to agree to cooperate on certain key values and issues. The problem is that some people prefer to play-to-win for themselves, rather than the greater good. The NDP comes to mind immediately, but I don't know that the others are any better.
In reality, if the three elected progressive parties (progressive on paper, anyway) were to cooperate, Stephen Harper would be in big trouble. Because, you see, they might agree on common platform items that, no matter which of them holds the balance of power, they would pass legislation on. They would agree to a coalition government, in which cabinet posts and other positions were given to all members of the coalition.
This is not happening, and I don't think it will happen until they are forced to 'cooperate.'
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
OK, I'm an idiot - explain how we cooperate
Elizabeth says "We need to find a new way of doing things".
Brian says change will happen when other parties are "forced to 'cooperate.'"
Can someone decode this for me? How will this work practically? When does it start?
How to cooperate with the NDP, Liberals, and even conservatives
[Note the lower-case 'c'.]
Here's how the extreme right did it in the US: they met regularly and agreed upon certain goals. They agreed to support these goals, even if they didn't agree with certain other groups or all of their positions and values, in order to push their common agenda forward, and they have succeeded beyond everyone's wildest nightmares.
Progressives, on the other hand, are still fractured. On paper, we share some important common goals with the NDP and Liberals - and even true conservatives, not the phony Cons in power. And, if these goals really mattered to us, we would all sit down around a table and agree upon what we could agree upon. Next, we would publicly commit to support each other on those goals, and we would not attack each other on those goals. (We would still reserve the right to differ on other goals and principles.) We would agree that, whoever formed the government, we would put those goals at the head of the legislative agenda. We would agree to appoint cabinet ministers and other positions from all those parties that had agreed to the goals.
However, the fossil parties are still holding out the hope of ruling as if they had a majority. They see cooperation as a loss, as weakness. They are foolish this way, but too foolish to realise it. And one of the strongest messages they are sending the Canadian people is that climate change is not that bad, because if it was, they would put the welfare of Canadians first and cooperate to take action.
I think the Greens should be very upfront about how important it is to cooperate, and our willingness to do so. Imagine if Ms. May did this in the leadership debates...that would put the other parties on the spot to explain why they're not agreeing to something that would advance their goals. But even well prior to any debates, I believe the Green Party should call the other parties on this.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Again, how do we cooperate?
Brian, this is a lot of words, but nothing we can act on. There will probably not be any "sitting around a table". There will only be an election :-)
What do you suggest we do?
Co-operate where possible to build connections---
First, we need to make sure that we never "burn bridges". That means we refuse to slag people from other parties---including the Tories. It is a lot easier to make an enemy than it is to make a friend, and you don't build a party by making enemies. (Personally, I disagree with Elizabeth's constant slagging of Stephen Harper in public. It may be true, but I think it is ultimately counter-productive.)
Secondly, whenever possible, we need to engage in coalitions. In Guelph there is a coalition of Greens, "dippers" and Grits that work together to elect our municipal government. We also work together in various citizen's groups such as "Residents for Sustainable Development", "The Guelph Civic League" and "Wellington Water Watchers". To build the Greens we need to make sure that a lot of very good work gets done by prominent Greens on every issue of importance. This builds the bonds of personal respect that turns into support come election time.
The thing we have to always remember is that the Green Party project is a marathon race, not a sprint. As we continue to hold the higher ground, it is easier for the other parties to "steal our ideas". And it also means that it will be easier to form a coalition government when it becomes clear that we need to mobilize the entire nation to deal with the climate emergency.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
What Bill said, and...
First, I agree with Bill that slagging other individuals is counter-productive, and tends to polarize people by making them defensive. Although I admit to my fair share of slagging Mr. Harper, perhaps because I see him as so dangerous, this is especially true with Mr. Harper. Why? I believe his followers tend to value loyalty to the individual, so every time someone attacks him personally, they automatically draw closer to him.
I do tend to slag the parties in general, in that I tell people that, no matter how well-intentioned the individual may be, their party will not allow them to have a significant influence.
Second, perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I was advocating that we actively and publicly propose a coalition government. That is, we repeatedly and publicly call on the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and small-c conservatives to agree to cooperate on the climate crisis. That we agree on specific actions that we will collectively take, specific targets, even specific means where possible. That we publicly state that we will appoint cabinet ministers from other parties.
We need to position the climate crisis as it truly is: an emergency that threatens our children's future and ultimately our civilization. And given the magnitude of the threat, we need to work together to solve it, starting now.
That is the public message we need to put out there. How the other parties respond is their choice, of course, but Canadians need to know what we would do to confront the climate emergency.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
We already HAVE a coalition government
The current Harper-Dion government :-)
As an aside, slagging Harper constantly does NOT win us any friends in Alberta or my region, Eastern Ontario, or in areas where the Conservatives are popular. Lots of people voted for them, and these voters don't like being told they're idiots :-)
Seriously, I've given this a lot of thought. The FPTP system does not have any mechanism for parties to "plan" a coalition government.
John Ogilvie
GPC Federal Council Member
Seeking the GPC nomination in Ottawa West Nepean (against John Baird)
Candidate for GPO Deputy Leader
A Historical Example of a Coalition Government
John:
Sorry to contradict you, but you are demonstrably wrong on this one. Take a look at the following quote.
The Union Government (1917-20)
Since Confederation there has only been one coalition government in Canada’s history: the Union Government of World War I. This was a coalition between the Conservative Party, led by Robert Borden, and Liberals and independents. The coalition was formed in order to broaden support for the Borden government and its controversial conscription policy.
In 1917, Prime Minister Borden announced that his government was going to introduce conscription to increase troops for the war in Europe. This policy was strongly opposed by many groups in Canada, in particular, French Canadians in Quebec and rural farmers. These groups resented being forced to participate in a British foreign war.
Prime Minister Borden hoped that a coalition government consisting of Conservatives and Liberals would help overcome these growing divisions within the country on this issue. Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Liberal Party, was opposed to conscription; he refused to lead his party into a coalition with the Conservatives. Many English-speaking Liberals, however, disagreed with their leader and left the party to join Borden in a coalition commonly referred to as the “Union Government.” Ultimately, the Union Government was successful in wining the general election of 1917 and eventually pushing conscription through Parliament.
With the end of the war in 1918, the primary raison d’être for the Union Government ceased to exist and the coalition began to break apart. Many former Liberals returned to their original political party, and the coalition dissolved completely with Prime Minister Borden’s retirement in 1920. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/coalition-gov...
There is no reason at all why the Canadian political class could not form a similar coalition in order to mobilize Canadians in order to make the transition to a sustainable society.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
Other coalition governments
There are other examples we can also use to show the concept: our exact execution might be different, but the idea is to get the idea across to Canadians that we are facing a crisis and we need our politicians to start working together. The British wartime government under Churchill is the primary example that comes to mind.
As an aside, I have reluctantly come to agree with John that we, including me, must stop bashing Mr. Harper. It only makes those who voted for him defensive and less open. It actually serves the purpose of polarizing the country, and we don't want that. Now, this is not to say we should not continue to point out where he is wrong. What it does mean is focusing on the policies of his government, rather than slagging the individual. It also means contrasting our policies with theirs, as Green policies are certainly more conservative than those of the Conservatives.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
OK, the GOVERNMENT can form a coalition
Thanks for the info on the Union Government of 1917. Fascinating..
However, this coalition was formed by the governing party (Borden's Conservatives). Borden invited MPs from other parties to join cabinet and broaden the govt's support during wartime.
The coalition won the 1917 election, and Borden tried to turn it into a proper "new" political party after the war, but failed.
Interesting, but hard to apply to our current situation. In Ontario provincial politics, nobody would have been surprised if Premier John Tory invited Greens into cabinet. The federal level is much more polarized.
And - let's be clear - the mass of Canadians do not see climate change as a crisis on the same level as World War I or II. (Please don't start a discussion about why they SHOULD, life's too short :-)
John Ogilvie
GPC Federal Council Member
Seeking the GPC nomination in Ottawa West Nepean (against John Baird)
Candidate for GPO Deputy Leader
Stop thinking short term--
As Greens, we are supposed to be thinking 140 years ahead of time (that old "seven generations thing".) Perhaps in political terms we could think a little bit further ahead than the next election? Stephan Dion has already used the idea of a coalition government to deal with the climate crisis when he decided to no run a candidate against Elizabeth May. The example from Borden is useful because as a Conservative he announced and the Liberals leader refused to get involved. But some of his back-benchers did buy into the coalition. If Dion declared a coalition before the next election and then brought together the leaders of the NDP and Greens to split up ridings, it could work and end the neo-con's ability to split the vote. If they passed legislation ensuring the next election is proportional, that would be the end of the neo-cons forever.
It is true that I doubt that many Liberals or Dippers would go for this now. But give us another election where the result is another Tory minority, with the Greens peeling away votes from the other parties, and the idea could gain traction.
Not only that, but if the Greens articulated this strategy to the public, it would counter the old attempts by the Liberals and NDP to avoid "wasting their votes". If we planted this idea in the heads of voters I think it would become a very popular strategy.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
we do that.. harper gets a majority
ok, so lets say we start talking about a coalition with the liberals (not widely viewed as slowly swinging left) and the NDP (always viewed as left).. The old PC's (who i think are going to make or break the next election) are gonna go for Harper, as much as it pains them... the choice is going to seem like Right or Left.. even if there is no coalition, us talking about a coalition with the other "left" parties just takes away our "right wing" cred.. if anything can stop Harper from a majority, its the Green appealing to PC's (like myself) on a wider basis.. a coalition will NEVER happen well Jack Layton is the leader. because his party would never recover from it, a coalition would be the end of the NDP. Plus his ego would never settle for anything less the "Jack Layton LEADER of the NDP". Although I'm not opposed to trading a few more ridings with the liberals in exchange for their PUBLIC COMMITMENT to PR and Carbon Tax.. I don't see hope of a coalition with the NDP and I think even talking about it hurts us.
Practical plan for a coalition (involving maps and pins)
Elizabeth, Jack and Stephane (and their campaign strategists) retire to a mountain lodge for a summit meeting.
I recommend Calabogie, near Ottawa, since it is a ski resort, and will be cheap in the offseason :-)
Fri night a baseline is negotiated based on current popular support. E.g. Libs 30%, NDP 15%, GPC 10%. (You can see how much fun THAT would be.)
Saturday an electoral map is stapled to the wall. As a coalition, we should get 55% of the vote, which is more than the 40% needed to gain a "majority" under FPTP. So we put white pins in those ridings where - as a coalition - we "should" win. (Yes, I'm ignoring the BQ because they can't play nationally.)
Taking turns (like a game of Risk :-) Libs put red pins beside the white pins in 100 ridings, NDP gets 50 yellow pins, GPC gets 30 green pins, to put in the map. These are the ridings each party "wants" to win.
If there is only one party pin in each riding, remove the white pin. There is no dispute who should run there. Where there are multiple pins in a riding, trade-offs are made. "I will withdraw my pin HERE if you withdraw yours THERE."
Sunday the three leaders announce the "Canadian Coalition" or whatever sounds right, and throw a BBQ.
The Coalition will jointly run a single slate of 308 candidates in Fall 2008. (Yes, we also sort out who among the three parties can field the best candidate in the OTHER 128 ridings that we expect the CPC or BQ to win.)
There are TREMENDOUS practical problems with this, of course.
* Liberal voters want to vote for the "Liberal" candidate, not the "coalition" candidate.
* All three parties will have to ask MOST of their candidates to step down.
* The Cons will (correctly) attack this as a manipulation of the election process.
But there are historical precedents, as Bill has pointed out. It COULD work.
If this ever happened, I get to take down the map and the pins to auction on EBay and finance my retirement :-)
You've nailed it!
That's exactly the scenario that I am envisioning. But there needs to be a context to make it possible.
At least one more election passes where the Conservatives have a minority and prove incompetent and the Liberals and NDP are "stalled" in popular support with a slow bleed to the Greens. This would mean that the party strategists for both the NDP and Liberals would be looking at destruction of both parties.
At the same time some sort of environmental catastrophe hits that is totally unambiguous and which justifies (gives an excuse for) a coalition of "national unity".
Also, to counter-act the people complaining, it needs to be spelled-out that within 100 days of taking office parliament will pass legislation creating proportional representation, which would remove the necessity of ever doing this again.
If this sounds impossible, consider the fact that the Alliance and Conservatives were in the same position and ultimately were willing to form an unholy alliance in order to get out of the vote-splitting hole they found themselves in. A one-time coalition government would be a heck of a lot more palatable to the NDP and Liberals than joining together permanently!
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
Grassroots Coalition?
Hi John,
your idea with maps and pins is interesting,.... but you suggest this be performed by the Party leaders and strategists in some back room somewhere. Does not seem very Green to me. We have so little democracy,... why reduce what little we have?
Greens are supposed to be supporters of grassroots democracy. So, perhaps, the decision to run candidates, or not, could be offered to the voters of individual ridings, before a General Election?.
e.g. A group of concerned citizens in a riding start a process in which 2 or more candidates, and Parties, agree to a run-off, pre-election, election. The process must be citizen driven, and require, say, 10% of registered voters to sign a petition calling for this, within a 90 day period, (similar to the BC Recall and Initiative Legislation).
I suggest the petition must be managed and verified by Elections Canada, and if it succeeds, a Run-Off election is conducted, also by Elections Canada, with equivalent funding restrictions etc. The successful candidate is then able to go up against whoever has not participated, in the General Election.
The key points of this proposal is that 1. its grassroots, requiring consent and support from a significant number of voters in a riding, and taken out of the Party hands, and 2. it is handled impartially by E.C. I repeat these points because we all hear anecdotal stuff about the "dangers" of vote splitting, including Elizabeth, that might not hold up if voters were given a choice. For example, as a candidate, I am personally lobbied by a concerned anonymous group, (http://shunlunn.informe.com/forum/ Stop the Vote Split). The lobbying is extremely minor,... indicating to me that most people are not really concerned at all and prefer the current system and choices offered.
Therefore, any deals, etc, must come from citizens who care enough to get organised, rather than candidates, Parties, leaders and strategists. Democracy belongs to people, lets not mess around with it for self serving interests, however well meaning.
Your approach is well-intentioned but impractical
Nobody is more vocal than I am within GPC about the need to constantly reassert grassroots control and avoid consolidation of power in the centre. Trust me on this :-)
However, the topic is how to build a "national coalition", and this cannot, practically, be done one riding at a time. The approach you describe involving pre-elections, petitions, additional funding is too cumbersome to work.
And - if you think it through - only a handful of Greens would win the pre-election and the right to represent the coalition. Remember that we have 10% support in every riding, but the Libs typically have 3x that. So we would end up with 308 "Coalition Candidates" - all of whom are Liberals :-)
Pre-election run-off
Hi John
I am not suggesting 308 pre-election run off campaigns, but in some key swing ridings where voters demonstrate a concern about vote splitting.
I do not support pre-election run-off campaigns either, but that is what is being suggested for Saanich Gulf Islands. As candidate, I might be open to a run-off campaign if voters send a clear message that is what they want. See http://shunlunn.informe.com/forum/
What I am suggesting, is that if some people are so concerned about vote splitting in a riding, then it is up to these people to prove that it is a popular concern, and stop pressuring Parties and candidates to "do something".
A process that is citizen driven, e.g. finding 10% support for a run-off election, would be something Parties might find simple to agree to, and puts the responsibility of a transparent, grassroots process in the hands of those who are so concerned. I was involved in Adriane Carr's Pro Rep campaign in 2002, using the Recall and Initiative Act to sign up 10% of registered voters in support of electoral reform. In 90 days we signed up over 10% of registered voters in our riding: one of only 9 to succeed. I respect this process and the 10% threshold.
Saanich Gulf Islands is unrepresentative
Of the 308 ridings where we need to succeed. As I understand it last year there was a effort by some senior Greens in your riding to withdraw the GPC candidate in order to concentrate support for a non-GPC, but environmentally-aware candidate from another party.
GPC EDAs can NEVER do that constitutionally. Members who think that way should quit the GPC, and lobby from outside for this. If they are trying to re-invent a political party as a body that trys to AVOID attracting votes in a riding, they need some quiet "think-time".
The 'pre-election' thing you are having to deal with - as GPC's candidate in this riding - seems to be their latest manifestation. This pre-election BS would result in a win by the non-GPC-but-enviro-friendly-candidate, right? Sounds like they are trying to achieve the same goal by different means. Ignore them, and campaign hard.
I hate to use a military analogy since I am profoundly a pacifist, but what I was talking about on this thread was three national leaders negotiating a fair "peace treaty" based on relative strengths nationally. But what you are talking about in Saanich is local units negotiating a ceasefire, or surrender based on local conditions. It's not the same thing..
We're already there
The Conservatives do NOT have the confidence of the majority of Canadians, esp. on the environment file.
The NDP was schooled by GPC in the last byelections. (Sorry, I have teenage kids.)
The Libs are imploding because of historic forces, with the implosion centered in Quebec, their former bastion. Nothing lasts forever.
I love your idea of presenting this as a short-term measure, to be replaced by proportional-rep. We don't want to follow the Borden model and try to create a new homogenized party.
James Brook hits the mark
The scenario outlined by James Brook above is the most probable outcome of the proposed coalition of NDP, Liberal and Green Parties. The portion of right-of-centre voters that support the Liberals and the Greens would evaporate and migrate to the Conservatives and whats more it is probable a new "true" Ecological Party and also a "true" Socialist Party would emerge to drain votes from the coalition.
This coalition option is a prescription for a Conservative Majority. We should focus on growing our Green Vote to its full potential. Lets leave it up to voters to decide how to they want to design their next government.
it's a thought experiment about "how" to do a coalition
Not a recommendation that we do one in the way I described.
I'm personally of two minds here.
I'm not afraid of "true" ecologists or socialists, although it would be interesting to see what parts of our GP platform made it into the coalition platform.
I don't think people understand what a "coalition government" is
From this discussion I don't think some of you understand what a coalition government is. It isn't a permanent grouping together of the different parties (i.e. what the Conservatives and Alliance did), that is a "merger". A Coalition is a short-term solution to a specific problem. I don't see why people who will not vote for the Conservatives now would shift to them because the Liberals, etc, wanted to use a coalition to get over the current electoral logjam---which is nothing more than an artificial creation of our goofy way of counting votes. Once we shifted to proportional representation the need for a coalition would end and the individual parties would go their separate ways. There is no way that people would create new political parties in order to protest the one-term wonder that I am proposing. In fact, I suspect most Canadians (outside of the Tories and media) would consider it a very good idea. (Co-operation instead of partisan games-playing! Image that.)
One point that is true, however, the NDP would never go for it until they get over their insane idea that they will eventually reduce the Liberals to a rump if they just attack them enough. And the Liberals will never go for it until they realize that they will not be able to create false majorities again by wasting the votes of people who vote for other parties. That is why I suggested that this is a long term electoral strategy. It will only be something that the Dippers and Grits will consider if they see the Tories exploiting the split vote over at least one more election cycle.
That is why I am saying we need to avoid slagging any other party. Think of this discussion as a "trial balloon" for future consideration.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
Elizabeth Sick with the Flu
Craig Cantin
Interim Executive Director / Directeur exécutif par intérim
Green Party of Canada / Parti vert du Canada
866.868.3447 x 223
Hope. Believe. Vote Green.
Espérer. Croire. Voter Vert.
No slagging needed
I think the comments calling for a end to slagging PMSH (or any of the other parties and leaders) is cogent. We don't need to throw any mud because the LPC, CPC and NDP are doing a good job of that already. Let them wallow in the mud. Some of it sticks to both the tossers and the targets. Meanwhile, we take the high road by campaigning purely on our ideals, policies and platform.
The high road approach shows the voters that we are not like the fractious, childish MP's they see trading insults and getting nothing done in the HoC. Merely by refraining from attacks, we show ourselves to be reasonable, pragmatic and positive. We don't need to kiss their behinds; we just need to refrain from slapping their faces.
A joining of forces sounds appealing but, until we represent a larger percentage, the parties will not see that as desirable enough to enter into any side deals or coalitions. Once we do raise our percentage of support, we won't need them and we won't need to water down our party to fit into a coalition mold.
Unfortunately, cooperation between opposition parties is just not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Even Dion said voters who want a green government should vote LPC. Not exactly a big cooperator. The NDP? They despise the GPC. They spend most of their time attacking the Grits but they save a good portion of vitriol for us treehuggers. We just need to continue to build support, like we have been doing quite well.
From hearing Elizabeth a few times, I realize one of her greatest fears is a Harper majority. Despite that, I think the negative rhetoric needs to disappear.
Jim Elve
Communications Chair
Haldimand-Norfolk
Jim Elve
The opinions expressed here are purely my own and do not represent official Green Party of Canada policy or positions.
How many Greens would it take to reform a mudslinger?
Well, we could estimate, but combined, we could give free speech a good rinse!
I concur with what you've said above. Nevertheless -and I think others have voiced this- if the GPC does campaign on the 'high road', as you say, I think it is also important for us to speak out about the unacceptability and hypocrisy of the sorts of overly personal or overly partisan attacks by others which lower the level of actual democratic debate (perfect example - www.notaleader.ca - I think they've updated it recently but a few weeks ago it's childishness infuriated me). Leading by example, I think, warrants correcting mistakes too.
Are we in agreement that this is the way forward if we truly desire democratic renewal? As Chris Tindal said a while back, voters aren't stupid. Parties sometimes treat them like they are.
I see that sort of drivel, although an offshoot of free speech, as a handicap to genuine freedom of speech, which, coupled with responsibility, guarantees us the freedom to discuss openly and honestly the issues that matter - issues that we are privileged to be able to discuss freely in our society.
Good Point Craig---how about an attempt at a joint statement?
That's a good point, Craig. How about a "quick and dirty" Green campaign to stop this sort of silliness? How about a campaign by the Greens to bring all the parties together into a covenant to stop ad-hominem attacks in their literature? I doubt if the NDP or Conservatives would join up, but it might be nice to try and make the effort. A press package could be created that showed examples from all the parties (Greens included) and a statement to the extent that we are trying to "raise the bar" in politics. The media would hate it, but the public would probably eat it up.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong." H.L. Mencken
Parliament and our Electoral System must work
I don't understand how this discussion will benefit our value of participatory democracy. Pin points, divide and conquer the progressive vote and an out of parliament coalition?? Perhaps an equally undesirable solution would be to all rename ourselves the democrats, and the Conservatives could call themselves republican and we could go from there!!
How about a better solution:
1) Parliamentarians who are already elected, you know the majority who aren't Conservative, push through joint legislation right now, without an election. (Something a little more substantial than flag lowering) Certainly 3 so-called progressive parties can find 1 issue in common?
2) Demand Liberals actually make PR a priority. NOW. Not after the next election. I don't want to see Harper get a majority, but so far the Liberals are doing as much as they can to offer voters no good reason to vote Liberal. I don't mind winning votes from other parties, but the Liberals seem to be losing them faster that we can gain them,
Dan Grice
Candidate for Vancouver Quadra.
www.VoteGrice.com
604-725-8913
These opinions and ideas are my own, but I grant you the right to implement them.
Agree on limiting our Harper Attacks
I've tried raising this before, but I find it really annoying to hear the Green Party use the phrase "Harper Government" in our press releases.
I agree with John Ogilvie, that we lose potential votes when we aim to villanize Harper or any leader in public statements. I have no problem with being critical for stances or inaction on an issue by issue basis (and I think the LN&C are all fair game) but we need to really keep our focus on the policies, especially in public forums and in the media. Even if you have certain extreme feelings towards the PM, expressing them is more likely to shore up his support than to win the Green movement any sympathy.
I hope if we are in the Leader's debate, we proceed as if no other party existed and focus on our solutions. The same if one has a TV or radio interview. If we only have only got a few seconds of talk time, no use wasting precious words on promoting someone we don't like. People are going to vote Green because we stand for something, not because we oppose someone.
Dan Grice
Candidate for Vancouver Quadra.
www.VoteGrice.com
604-725-8913
These opinions and ideas are my own, but I grant you the right to implement them.
What the Libs/NDP will probably do (hint: not a coalition)
Here's an article (one among several I've seen) suggesting that the NDP has to "form a coalition with the Green Party". http://www.martlet.ca/article/3066-layton-needs-to...
Dan, your suggestions 1 and 2 above require that the OTHER parties do something. This made me realize that if the Libs and NDP were actually AWAKE they would see our situation as an opportunity.
They would look at the 10% voter support we have - spread broadly so we will always struggle to earn seats. They would find some more-or-less democratic way to capture that support for their party.
If I were Dion or Layton I would cynically
a) convince dozens of current/former Green candidates to run as Libs/NDP
b) have my candidates meet with local Greens to publicly "adopt our agenda"
c) make vague promises to bring unelected Greens into government as ministers and officials
The Libs are actually doing this in a half-hearted way but are too polite to actually pillage us :-) The NDP were in denial about our strength, but I bet they will use this strategy after the byelections.
As candidates and organizers, we have to be watchful for these tactics and respond. And the response needs to be very partisan.
Already poaching
Tactic A has been going on for some time now, from the Liberals and even NDP. There have been a number of cases of (former) Green Party candidates or organizers being recruited to run Liberal or NDP. So far, this has had neglible effect on either party - neither has made real moves to PR or accepted the proven (a decade in other countries and counting) effectiveness for economy & environment of tax shifting.
If such poaching were a two-way process I wouldn't worry, but we have yet to successfully lure as many former candidates our way - the ones I know of I can count with my thumbs. Sure, we've got former members, volunteers, and riding exec from other parties working for us, but not the high profile candidates. The difference, of course, is that Liberals or NDP can promise you 'winnability' - although in practise they tend to put former Greens in non-winnable ridings so they can exploit the aura without having to deal with them in caucus.
Front-benching of party defectors goes on - the Liberals are experts at this - but tends to be of the former leaders or leadership contenders of other parties (e.g. Bob Rae, Ujjal Dosanj, Jean Charest, Belinda Stronach, Scott Brison). Warning to Greens - if you aren't already an elected MP, the Liberals won't put you in a seat they expect to win. They just want your image to rub off on them without having to actually change how they govern. If they agree with our ideas, they'll put them on paper in their platform; if they really want to work with us, they'll show it by supporting our participation in the leaders debates and working with us in Parliament.
The Dippers at rabble-babble actually have a wild conspiracy theory that Elizabeth May's secret goal is to get appointed to the cabinet, Senate, or a plum patronage position by Dion's Liberals. If this were what she actually wanted, it would be far easier for her to just run as a Liberal and pick up a seat for them. They'd be quite happy to have her as a star candidate and would provide plenty of support - and she wouldn't have to work the hours she does (at the low pay she gets) to do it. (Heck, she could probably even get Harper to appoint her to something just to get her off his back - he already put our special deputy leader on the NRTEE.) Anyone who believes this wacky theory is choosing to ignore the facts.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), the views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Changing the rules doesn't happen overnight
While it is inherently more difficult to form coalitions in a FPTP system, is that going to stop us from promoting it? Are we not the Green Party with policies that turn the tables on the traditional "winner take all" method?
The only reason we haven't had a coalition recently after a succession of minority governments is simple: no one can work with the Tories. However, the public is conditioned now for such cooperation and any government of the 3 progressives (Liberal, NDP or Greens - maybe even the Bloc, in most areas they are progressive) would happily create a coalition government. The threat of another election in 2 years time producing another minority of Tories is unthinkable to the Canadian polity. This doesn't even include the expense of the election process which runs into the 100's of millions of $.
The problem for us, as has been outlined by others, will be in the interim period waiting for the other parties to "get it". It appears that Dion does after agreeing not to run a candidate against Elizabeth, but he has received major flak from his old line support base. Layton has done the knee jerk thing and immediately cried "undemocratic". Christ, the whole system of FTPT is undemocratic. FPTP produces a succession of illegitimate governments, we all know that.
The reality remains: as long as we continue to play by the old rules without modification, the planet will burn. Harper and clones will use office to delay and block any real emission reductions or levelling the playing field. I say lets do as one writer says and find common ground, as the right wing did in the USA under Reagan. They of course have had all the rope they needed and now they are hanging themselves. We don't need to go there (Iraq, Afghanistan, free market meltdown economics, climate change denial and delay, divide and rule politics). By the very nature of our beliefs (socially and fiscally responsible, peace loving, mixed economy) we will not fall into this trap.
Sorry about the "waiting" part. Meanwhile lets try and cultivate some Buddhist thinking and the waiting won't be so hard.
Logical but not true
You say:
"The only reason we haven't had a coalition recently after a succession of minority governments is simple: no one can work with the Tories. However, the public is conditioned now for such cooperation and any government of the 3 progressives (Liberal, NDP or Greens - maybe even the Bloc, in most areas they are progressive) would happily create a coalition government."
This sound logical, but sadly is untrue.
For one thing, the NDP have been happy to work with the Conservatives any time it can forward their common goal of weakening the Liberals - starting with their non-confidence that brought down Harper in 2005, moving through their bizarre cooperation to defeat the Liberals' out-of-Afghanistan-by-2009 motion and on to current NDP motions designed to humiliate the Liberals instead of focusing on the real enemy. (In our system, the target of 'loyal' opposition parties should be the government, not other opposition parties).
On the other side, while it would seem that the 'progressive' Liberals, NDP, and Bloc could work together to outnumber the minority Harpercrits, the fact of the matter is that they could already be doing this if they were so inclined. There is nothing stopping those 3 parties from voting non-confidence and having the Governer General call on them to form a coalition government, not even requiring an election. Nothing stopping it, that is, besides their complete inability to meaningfully cooperate even when the stake of the nation or entire planet is at stake.
Any talk of Greens cooperating with such parties before or even during the next election is premature. Until we have seats or a significant vote share, the other parties will continue to disregard, dismiss, or disparage us. We will have to earn our seat at the table (and in the House) before we can join or even inspire any kind of grand coalition.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
Barrie, ON
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada - the same goes for all other people's posts & comments.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), the views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
You say you want a coalition
Talk about changing the divisive nature of the my team vs your team approach in politics is timely and realistic but talk about forming coalitions with other parties is premature. Our ideas are free for the taking and with zero seats in parliament we have little to offer any potential coalition partners.
If you want to get to a point where forming a coalition is a real option here’s the shortest route:
1) Get Elizabeth into the debates
2) Grow our supporter base, raise funds and build campaign readiness
3) Get a handful of greens elected, consolidate our 12% poll rating into
votes and secure the attendant funding that goes along with it
4) Use the disproportionate influence that the media will create for the first elected greens to prove that we can be positive force in the Government of Canada
5) Show that we can win at least 30 seats two elections from now
Now you are ready to talk about forming coalitions.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Political Cooperation
The best way to gain political cooperation of other parties is to develop a common sense, practical solution to current problems. See my blog on Health Care System.
Richard Hombek
Inverary, Ontario