One piece of advice would be to listen to the people who might actually vote for you:
A pre-election coalition?A single slate would be the height of simplicity: the Liberals and NDP agree not to run against their incumbents, and apportion the remaining seats based on who came 2nd to the Tories outside of Quebec. In Quebec, there's the thornier question of what to do with the Bloc, but I'm tempted to say they should stay out of the coalition. This has the advantage of being popular and pragmatic: I don't think the Bloc would be seriously threatened in many of their seats by a combined Liberal-NDP vote, unless Ignatieff seriously resucitates Liberal fortunes in Quebec. When 60-70% of your supporters back this kind of initiative, it's really a no-brainer, especially if we're thrust in to an election that the Liberals aren't remotely prepared for.
Respondents were asked to ponder a scenario in which the Liberals and the NDP formed a pre-election coalition that would present a single slate of candidates in the entire country, where Grits and New Democrats would not run against each other in the same riding.
Two-in-five Canadians (40%) like this idea, but 45 per cent are opposed. The highest level of support for this concept comes from respondents who voted for the Liberals (67%), the Bloc (67%) and the NDP (59%) in the last federal election, with Green supporters (36%) and Conservative voters (19%) clearly less enthused.
That said, I have an extremely low opinion of Michael Ignatieff, so a no-brainer might be beyond him...
7 comments:
Installing Ignatieff as interim leader at this point will basically kill cooperation between the opposition parties and confirm the public perception that the Liberals are elitist, back stabbing, power hungry partisans.
Interesting w/v: sescedd
Oh my god, that is NOT how a "pre-election coalition" (i.e., a prospective government coalition in which parties hope to form government telegraph that intention) works! The parties run candidates against each other based on their respective policy preferences, and then if they are blessed by the will of the voters, form government together.
It's not like there isn't precedent for this in other jurisdictions! Would people (read: reporters) please start informing themselves already?
*throws up hands*
IP: In other jurisdictions, they have PR. We don't. My suggestion -- and that's all it was -- was trying to reflect the reality of what a coalition that was serious about taking power could do in our system.
I do love how, when I'm more or less in the mainstream of progressive thought the comments threads are empty. Then, everytime I've deviated even an inch from people's preferred stances somebody shows up to yell at me. Makes blogging really rewarding.
Oh, and it is more or less how coalitions have worked in pure Westminster systems before, notably after WWI in the UK during the split within the Liberal Party.
Here.
I do love how, when I'm more or less in the mainstream of progressive thought the comments threads are empty. Then, everytime I've deviated even an inch from people's preferred stances somebody shows up to yell at me. Makes blogging really rewarding.
Heh. If you'd like, I can chime in with a "me too" every time you post something I agree with but have nothing substantive to add.
Slightly more seriously - of course you're going to get more comments when people disagree with you than when they agree. This is the Internet! It was built for two things - porn and arguments.
--NonyNony
Nonynony: I don't mind disagreement, I mind hair-trigger disagreement without taking a minute to reflect.
I was speaking with a columnist today who said something I liked: "We don't just need good writers, we need good readers, too."
Oh, and if my first comment sounded petulant I apologize. Not my intent.
Post a Comment