Layton opens coalition door

[CHIMO]

NDP Leader Jack Layton is refusing to rule out a coalition government with Stéphane Dion's Liberals if that's what it takes to oust Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Blasting Harper on everything from the environmental damage in the Alberta tar sands to the war in Afghanistan, Layton said this morning it's time to move Canada in a different direction.

Asked on CTV's Canada AM if he would "entertain even the notion of entering into a coalition with the Liberals in order to get the Conservatives out of power," the New Democrat stressed he's never allowed partisanship to trump the greater public good.

"Well, you know what, I've worked with any other party. I think people have seen that if they look back to my days on a municipal council," said Layton, a former Toronto councillor and one-time president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503547

United they stand, ready to fall
http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/503466



Never knew there was a closed door.

[Caradoc]

1. Gawd, how I hate the Star...

Thanks for the post; I enjoy Chantal Hebert but I've come to loathe the Star. The Star owns Metroland Media, which has gobbled up hundreds of community newspapers in Ontario, streamlined them all (in my community, laid off 22, including my part-time reporting gig, and kept a mere 7), slashed community news content into insignificance and crammed it with big box advertising. Hypocrites of the highest order.

I notice in the comments section one person pointing out the the Star has its nose out of joint over Dion being leader...that's been obvious.

Love the tory apology!

[LiberadorHugo]

2. They're Liberals, not progressives...

The capital L speaks for itself.

[Caradoc]

3. Reminds me of Ontario '95

I was NDP at the time, and all these 'progressives' were whining and moaning about Bob Rae and his 'Rae Days' (hey, the economic times were very hard...people forget that). So I said 'getting 'in lieu' time instead of a raise is worse than getting laid off how exactly?' They 'punished' Bob Rae by not supporting him, Harris won and then pre-emptively declared war on teachers, health care and public sector workers etc.

So now we're at the same point again...Harper is preferable to Dion how exactly?

[iverglas]

4. "Harper is preferable to Dion how exactly?"

Did you mis-place your post?

Did someone say Harper is preferable to Dion?

Pointing out what the Liberals are is not equal to saying Harper is preferable to Dion.


Note that I am foursquare behind what you said about Ontario '95.

[HeresyLives]

5. Harris majority was in reaction

to Bob Rae's disasterous 5 years as NDP premier.

Of course people were expecting PC's and they got neo-cons instead. Harper is also a neo-con, and many of his ministers are from the Harris years.

[iverglas]

6. if only someone had asked you ...

your drivel might have found an audience.

[HeresyLives]

7. I see you are incapable of

discussion, and only offer sarcasm and insults.

How you think this helps your party, or any kind of 'coalition' idea, I don't know.

[iverglas]

8. now that's just plain funny

http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

[HeresyLives]

9. On the contrary, you strike me as

a very bitter person.

[iverglas]

10. yes, and

I care. Deeply.

Run along now. Please. I'm bored.

[Bragi]

11. So what do you think of Jack's opennes to a coalition, iverglas?

[iverglas]

12. Sun Sep-14-08 09:21 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=24984

iverglas
Sun Sep-14-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. eh?

... I am actually not averse to some sort of Liberal-NDP coalition, or Liberal minority propped up by NDP majority. In fact, I would have absolutely loved to see Dion go to Jean with a request to form a government last week. Just to say Fuck you, Harper, and your stinking game-playing with Parliament. I would have urged the NDP to indicate confidence. Not mine to choose, though.

(Aargh -- first time around I was too late to edit that "NDP majority". Still time to do it this time: NDP, uh, thingy.)

I have my doubts about an actual coalition, but I have no real problem with going as far as indicating that a Liberal minority has the confidence of the House in order to form a government.

Should Harper get a larger minority and be asked first to form a government, bring the bastards down immediately and send Dion to the GG with confidence in hand.

That's unrealistic. So is a coalition. Just my opinion. I actually think a coalition would be quite fun, it just isn't very likely to happen.

Anyhow, I guess I just figured that since so many here seem to track my comings and goings so closely, everybody already knew what I thought.

Oh, btw, I had something to say on it here, in amazingly similar terms:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=21465

iverglas
>>> Wed Jun-20-07 <<< 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. actually

I think you'll find that a Liberal-NDP / Conservative-Bloc vote split on recorded votes in the House these days isn't too uncommon.

Frankly, I think it's a bit of a pro forma dance. Nobody wants an election, so they all draw straws to see who's going to vote with the Conservatives this time.

The thing that I would not be averse to, myself, is an informal coalition government -- if the Liberals had fewer seats than the Conservatives but could form a government by having NDP support to give them a sustainable majority. Minority government usually means that the block with the largest number of seats forms the government, so that would be different from historical minority govts here. But it isn't quite an option the case in the present House, and won't be as long as there is such a large Bloc block -- Liberal + NDP doesn't equal a majority.

I'd actually hoped there might be some chance of this with the present House -- non-confidence the bastards and then have the Liberals approach the GG to form a govt. If there were some stronger basis for doing it after the next election, even if the Conservatives still had the largest single block -- say, if the Bloc were severely reduced but the Liberals still didn't pick up enough in Quebec to get a nation-wide plurality -- I'd still love to see it happen. It would beat having a choice between election after election and continuing Conservative government, anyhow. It would certainly be new and different, but it's entirely proper and consistent with parliamentary tradition.

Now, that's an entirely different question from a coalition strategy in an election, of course. And I've never really seen one of those proposed. I see Liberals calling for the NDP to roll over and die, not offering to split the available winnable seats in some equitable manner for election purposes, e.g. And in any event, I really just don't think anybody could sell that to the voters. I'd actually be afraid that enough of the big squishy soft-headed voters would be righteously indignant enough to take that as another dumb excuse for smacking the arrogant Liberals' hand and voting Conservative.

And I'm just not really interested in the roll over and die electoral strategy, you see. ;)

(And no, I did not mean the disingenuous re-reading of my post that followed it.)


Thee and me even chatted a bit about confidence stuff here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=190&topic_id=20827

My, I'm a dark horse.

[Bragi]

14. Thanks for the clarificaton on coalitions

I've been a bit distracted lately, so I'm not always able to recall your views.

So do you favour people voting NDP even in ridings where there is no chance of the NDP getting elected, and where doing this will result in Cons defeating Libs?

- B

[iverglas]

15. tell ya what

Go familiarize yourself with my views, including how I have acted on them.

You should find everything you need in the first half-dozen or so threads at the top of this board just now.

[iverglas]

16. Sun Sep-14-08 04:12 PM

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=190&topic_id=25002&mesg_id=25020

iverglas
Sun Sep-14-08 04:12 PM

{quoting preceding poster} The fact remains that if you vote NDP, you'll have PM Harper for 4 years.

I live in a riding in which the order of candidates last election, by number of votes, was:

NDP
Liberal
Conservative

It seems to me that if I switch my NDP vote to the Liberal, I create an opportunity for the Conservative to win up the middle. If enough other people do it, that is exactly what could happen. Especially if the Liberals continue to bleed votes to the Conservatives. NDP voters vote Liberal, Liberal voters vote Conservative, Liberal vote stays stable. NDP vote goes down, Conservative vote goes up. Conservative wins.

How does it seem to you?


Will no one answer the question?

Why would a voter in a riding held by an NDP MP vote Liberal in this election? -- if his/her most important objective, really and genuinely and honestly, were to ensure that the Conservatives did not take the riding.

Why?

Please just answer. It's quite a simple question.


I have already say {said} that *I* will consider strategic voting with the objective of defeating the most undesirable candidate/party, rather than electing the most desirable candidate/party. I have said that *I* did this, in fact, in the last Ontario election, by voting Liberal; and *I* did it in a long ago federal election, by voting PC. (Some of us remember reading Pierre Trudeau's lips: no wage and price controls.)

What I can't figure out is why anyone would suggest that I switch my NDP vote to the Liberals in a riding held by the NDP. Particularly with Liberal voters deserting their own party en masse and going not to the NDP but to the Conservatives.

So gosh. I guess maybe I should go find all the Liberal shills hereabouts saying the same thing --
THAT THEY WILL VOTE NDP, STRATEGICALLY, IN THE NEXT ELECTION,
if that appears to be the best way of defeating a Conservative.

One or two may have said that ...

[iverglas]

13. You're welcome.

[offog]

18. I'd be okay with a Liberal-NDP coalition,

and I also agree with the idea of strategic voting to defeat the Conservatives.

This election, my big concern is Canada's sovereignty. If Harper gets a majority, he will sell us out to the Americans even more than Mulroney did. If we have a Conservative majority in Canada, and a McCain administration in the U.S., we'll really be in trouble. And what really drives me crazy is that a Harper government would be able to do this drastic stuff with only about 35% of the vote.

If the Americans invaded us for our oil and water, Harper would just roll over, assuming he doesn't give away our resources first.

On top of that, Harper is autocratic, mean, and a one-man show. He won't care what advisors or citizens say.

Last week I was chatting with my sister about Ryan Sparrow, who e-mailed the news media to say that the grieving father of a dead soldier was a Liberal supporter. Sparrow also came with the pooping puffin ad. My sister said "well, those are the kind of people the Tories attract." You want that bunch of goons running the country again?

[IntravenousDemilo]

17. Well, good for him, if true. n/m