"Coalition clause" in Liberal platform

One tiny item in today's Liberal platform leaps out (at least to me): a Liberal government would convene regular, face-to-face meetings of all party leaders in the House of Commons, to "take stock of the tone of Parliamentary debate, productivity in the conduct of people's business and the mandates for in-depth work by standing committees."

 Upon further inquiry, Liberals said they envision monthly gatherings of all leaders if they are elected. 

You may wonder: why would a political party have to promise this? Surely there are conversations held all the time in Parliament between the party leaders. 

Well, uh, no, there are not. There used to be such meetings, informally, I gather, and it was generally understood that behind all the public sparring for the cameras, politicians of all stripes generally respected each other and chatted from time to time. Not now. In the hyper-partisan, minority  Parliaments of  the past seven years, everyone's an enemy and to fraternize with them is to admit a  weakness. This isn't what folks are taught at leadership schools in the private sector, where working with others is a strength.... but that's another world, apparently. 

Frankly, Stephen Harper's greatest  show of leadership skills along these lines took place before he became prime minister, when, shortly after the 2004 election, he spent the summer talking to Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton and figuring out whether they could work together. The product of that negotiation was the now-famous letter to the Governor-General, which is now a tool in the hands of Harper's rivals, just as the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement of 2008 is a tool in the hands of Harper and the Conservatives.

Because working together is wrong. That's how mixed up things are in our wee tiny dysfunctional world of Parliament Hill. No wonder no one understands politics. 

But back to the "coalition clause" in the Liberal platform. The whole document is framed as an appeal to those who might be tempted to support other parties too -- take a look at the Green-friendly and NDP-friendly policies within it.   Last year, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said that his answer to all the coalition talk would be the reply: "Liberals *are* the coalition." This platform is his attempt to cast the party in that light, and should probably be measured that way. It would be interesting if all the political platforms were assessed for promises of co-operation, actually. So far, we only have one, and I'm not sure that we are demanding this of our politicians. 

 

Comments

[Jean Hayley]

Pretty cool concept--cooperation amongst the parties. I will vote for a party that promises this. However, I am skeptical that Stephen Harper is capable of such an exercise of good will.

[Dan Cummings]

Actually, Harper is excellent at talking to opponents if they'll talk back; that's how the merger of the Alliance and Progressive Conservatives resulted in the Conservative Party. That was in 2003. As you've noted, he talked to the NDP and Bloc in 2004 to see where there might be common ground if the Liberals were defeated in a confidence motion.

After winning in 2006 Harper tried to maintain meeting regularly but the hostility was too great. Once he won he became the enemy.

And as for this happening in the business world? Nope. Competitors don't meet and if they did at any serious level could be charged for collusion under anti-Combines and competition legislation.

[Rolf Auer]

Harper was the first to think of a coalition gov't, in 1997:

"[In 1997], [Tom] Flanagan and [Stephen] Harper launched a four-year writing partnership while they were repositioning Harper for his return to party politics. Their first effort was an article titled 'Our Benign Dictatorship,' which was published in the Donner Foundation-financed magazine the Next City. They argue that a coalition between Reform and the Bloc Quebecois was one way for conservatives to seize power."--Not A Conspiracy Theory, Donald Gutstein, 2009, p. 159.

My federal politics blog: clearpolitics.wordpress dot com
(Click "About" re reading posts, or on my picture.)
@Rolf_Auer

[Telco Guy]

@Dan Cummings I'm sure you have no idea how private sector business works. As an executive in the private sector I meet with my competitors all the time. Sometimes our competitors are partners depending on customer need. We see each other at conferences, industry specific meetings, further education classes, and especially meetings involving government regulators. The only thing we can't talk about is pricing.

[C.A. Watkins]

Ms. Delacourt has perceptively addressed one of the major issues afflicting (note choice of words) modern politics.

In her reference to what modern managers are taught, she emphasized the gap between the take-no-prisoners world of big-league politicians -- and all the rest of us.

We are constantly taught to show empathy, to conciliate, to seek to see the "other guy's" reasons. Meanwhile, politicians and their handlers are throwing out the window any thought of collegiality and focusing on a brutal bloodsport.

No wonder that voting rates are falling ... people see politics as being more and more detached from the normal existence.

No wonder so many good people refuse to take part in politics as candidates or campaign workers.