With the by-elections behind us, we’re hearing renewed calls for a joint front between the Liberals, NDP and Greens. Not hard to see the reason: Calgary Centre was a horse race, where the sum of the Liberal, Green and NDP vote was far superior to that of their Conservative rival Joan Crockatt — who won anyway.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May has for a long time supported the idea of joint nominations for the three ‘progressive’ parties. Liberal leadership contender and BC MP Joyce Murray has done so as well, following in the footsteps of her fellow British Columbian Nathan Cullen, who rode the issue to an impressive third-place finish in the NDP leadership race.
It’s the ‘traffic light’ coalition concept — and, just like talk of a Liberal-NDP merger, it’s a waste of time.
We’ve had this conversation already. The New Democrats were given the option of choosing a leader earlier this year who backed this type of cooperation; they chose Thomas Mulcair instead. If the NDP isn’t on board (and there’s no reason to believe they want to destroy the Liberal Party any less than Harper does) then already we’re talking exclusively about a Liberal-Green deal with little (if anything) to be gained by it.
Even if the parties pursued joint nominations in Conservative-held ridings, their leaders could undermine those nominations with gaffes. Justin Trudeau and David McGuinty know the kind of damage a few poorly-chosen words can do at the riding level. Imagine the devastating consequences for, say, a jointly-nominated New Democrat if a Liberal leader made a statement opposing his party’s policies during an election.
In fact, all you need to do is look at how the Liberals and New Democrats approach a critical policy file — energy — to see why the electoral cooperation concept is dead on arrival. Regardless of who becomes the next Liberal leader, his or her major economic message certainly will not be about linking the oilsands to “Dutch disease”.
To avoid being squeezed, the Liberals have to be to find a way to break the current Conservative-NDP bipolar economic debate over the oilsands. Polarizing the electorate serves the interests of the NDP and the Conservatives, — because they represent the left and right of the political spectrum and because they are now the two largest parties in terms of popular vote and seats.
The Liberals will need to reach both left and right in order to rebuild a winning electoral coalition. A traffic light coalition will irreparably create the perception that the Liberals have become a party of the left, killing the party’s chances of holding on to the support of right-leaning Liberals.
The consequences of the Grits’ leftward economic shift — where the tax cuts and balanced budgets of the Chrétien-Martin era gave way to calls for corporate tax hikes or poorly-sold carbon taxes under Dion and Ignatieff — should be plain to everyone by now. An aging population, the rising costs of public services, a resource boom, more international trade and a new wave of immigration are all making Canadians more right-leaning on economic issues. Another election with a left-leaning platform would do major long-term damage to the Liberal brand.
Many traditional Liberal voters would prefer to vote for a Conservative than for a New Democrat who was jointly nominated. There’s something deeper at play here, however. Teaming up with other parties to beat Harper is a reactionary, not progressive, strategy.
A progressive party needs to create a vision of its own that is not primarily rooted in opposition to someone else’s vision. That vision has to be original, compelling and easy to communicate. It also has to be national. Morally speaking, the traffic light parties simply don’t have enough in common to justify keeping a Liberal candidate from running in Conservative-held ridings.
Remember: Stephen Harper is prime minister today because he is a patient man. It took him a decade after becoming leader of the Canadian Alliance to win a majority government. After just six years of Conservative government, it is far too early to be discussing rash moves when conventional alternatives (better organization, policy and communications) have yet to be employed.
Those supporting joint nominations are putting forward a “go big or go home” argument: bolt together the biggest possible non-Conservative alliance or resign yourself to failure. But the argument contradicts what we know about what it takes to form a government. Selling out won’t get you there.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
Green Party leader Elizabeth May has for a long time supported the idea of joint nominations for the three ‘progressive’ parties. Liberal leadership contender and BC MP Joyce Murray has done so as well, following in the footsteps of her fellow British Columbian Nathan Cullen, who rode the issue to an impressive third-place finish in the NDP leadership race.
It’s the ‘traffic light’ coalition concept — and, just like talk of a Liberal-NDP merger, it’s a waste of time.
We’ve had this conversation already. The New Democrats were given the option of choosing a leader earlier this year who backed this type of cooperation; they chose Thomas Mulcair instead. If the NDP isn’t on board (and there’s no reason to believe they want to destroy the Liberal Party any less than Harper does) then already we’re talking exclusively about a Liberal-Green deal with little (if anything) to be gained by it.
Even if the parties pursued joint nominations in Conservative-held ridings, their leaders could undermine those nominations with gaffes. Justin Trudeau and David McGuinty know the kind of damage a few poorly-chosen words can do at the riding level. Imagine the devastating consequences for, say, a jointly-nominated New Democrat if a Liberal leader made a statement opposing his party’s policies during an election.
In fact, all you need to do is look at how the Liberals and New Democrats approach a critical policy file — energy — to see why the electoral cooperation concept is dead on arrival. Regardless of who becomes the next Liberal leader, his or her major economic message certainly will not be about linking the oilsands to “Dutch disease”.
To avoid being squeezed, the Liberals have to be to find a way to break the current Conservative-NDP bipolar economic debate over the oilsands. Polarizing the electorate serves the interests of the NDP and the Conservatives, — because they represent the left and right of the political spectrum and because they are now the two largest parties in terms of popular vote and seats.
The Liberals will need to reach both left and right in order to rebuild a winning electoral coalition. A traffic light coalition will irreparably create the perception that the Liberals have become a party of the left, killing the party’s chances of holding on to the support of right-leaning Liberals.
The consequences of the Grits’ leftward economic shift — where the tax cuts and balanced budgets of the Chrétien-Martin era gave way to calls for corporate tax hikes or poorly-sold carbon taxes under Dion and Ignatieff — should be plain to everyone by now. An aging population, the rising costs of public services, a resource boom, more international trade and a new wave of immigration are all making Canadians more right-leaning on economic issues. Another election with a left-leaning platform would do major long-term damage to the Liberal brand.
Many traditional Liberal voters would prefer to vote for a Conservative than for a New Democrat who was jointly nominated. There’s something deeper at play here, however. Teaming up with other parties to beat Harper is a reactionary, not progressive, strategy.
A progressive party needs to create a vision of its own that is not primarily rooted in opposition to someone else’s vision. That vision has to be original, compelling and easy to communicate. It also has to be national. Morally speaking, the traffic light parties simply don’t have enough in common to justify keeping a Liberal candidate from running in Conservative-held ridings.
Remember: Stephen Harper is prime minister today because he is a patient man. It took him a decade after becoming leader of the Canadian Alliance to win a majority government. After just six years of Conservative government, it is far too early to be discussing rash moves when conventional alternatives (better organization, policy and communications) have yet to be employed.
Those supporting joint nominations are putting forward a “go big or go home” argument: bolt together the biggest possible non-Conservative alliance or resign yourself to failure. But the argument contradicts what we know about what it takes to form a government. Selling out won’t get you there.
Original Article
Source: ipolitics
Author: Zach Paikin
No comments:
Post a Comment