The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition?

95 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24
The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition?

Suppose the election results leave no party with an absolute majority in Parliament. The NDP has already said they will not work with the Conservatives. Given Liberal mis-steps on things like buying pipelines and First Nations issues, the NDP may not be able to work with them either. So that would result in a deadlocked Parliament, and another snap election right away.

Not so fast. There is a way out of that impasse. That would be for the Liberals and the Conservatives to join forces to govern. That is not as crazy as you would think. Remember that the business community goes back and forth between both parties. They should find agreement on tax cuts for the rich. More tax credits for lower and middle income Canadians would fit very well with the Conservative platform, and it would allow the Liberals to tell their supporters that they are looking out for them. Then there is the pipeline. Both parties support it. The Conservatives went into this campaign claiming to have a green plan. They could use that to bring along the Liberals, or the Liberals may even convinve the Conservatives to agree with some parts of it. This is especially the case if private capital is willing to invest in renewable energy. On First Nations, the Conservaties and Liberals may come to an agreement to "give local control" to these communities. The Liberals would frame this as giving voice to First Nations, and the Conservatives would ensure this is done in such a way as to effectively privatize aspects of First Nations governance. Speaking of privatization, would the Conservatives and Liberals shy away from encouraging infrastructure projects be funded with money from P3s? Oh, but the Liberals and Conservatives are apart on social issues? Not so fast. Sure, Conservative MPs did bring forth issues, but Harper and members of his Cabinet always voted against them. This government could allow for a free vote on these issues, while the Prime Minister insists that the Cabinet always votes against them. There would be enough MPs from both parties who would oblige. There are other issues as well. Remember Trudeau opening up the dairy market after Harper wouldn't touch it and the Conservatives voted against a leadership candidate advocating that?

Think this is impossible? Stranger things have happened.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The Liberals would work with the Bloc and if need more would turn to May.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

KarlL

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

 

Rubbish.  But perhaps Stephen Lewis could shed some light on his motivations for having carried Bill Davis' PC government for the full four years 1977-81.  

R.E.Wood

I've said this in another thread a couple days ago, but if the Bloc has enough seats then the NDP and Greens may find themselves irrellevant to the final make-up of a minority government.

NorthReport

How many times did the Liberals vote to support the Conservatives during the Harper era? If I recollect it was in the hundreds Mouseland anyone

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GqgOvzUeiAA

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

KarlL

R.E.Wood wrote:

I've said this in another thread a couple days ago, but if the Bloc has enough seats then the NDP and Greens may find themselves irrellevant to the final make-up of a minority government.

 

Certainly possible if the Conservatives and BQ continue to rise but if you look at poll-aggregation simulators like TooClosetoCall and PollTracker, as of this morning, the Liberals would have 160 and the NDP 20 (TCTC) and 163 and 16 (Polltracker), either of which outcomes would be enough to form a stable minority if the two parties agreed to do so.

NorthReport

The reality is once the election is over the Liberals are a lot closer to the Conservatives than the NDP. 

It is only during election campaigns that the Liberals exhibit any progressive interest.

As Chretien often said said the Red Book gets thrown out after the election campaign is over. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

The main reason I don't think this will happen is that it would damage the Liberals immensely in future elections. How could they point to the Cons as bogeypersons if they had just finished 4 years of cordial cabinet meetings with them? If people were pissed off with the performance of this grand coalition government, the Libs couldn't take advantage of that. The NDP would become the only viable alternative to such a government. This isn't how a Natural Governing Party acts.

NorthReport

I don't think it would be a formal coalition, just that whichever the Liberals or Conservatives had the most number of seats they would govern with the assistance of the other, just like the way the Liberals supported Harper when he was in a minority government situation. But for all intents and purposes they may as well have been in a coalition.

R.E.Wood

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

NorthReport

Conservatives and Liberals advance corporate Canada's nuclear dreams

 

 

Conservatives and Liberals advance corporate Canada's nuclear dreams

 

Please chip in to support rabble's election 2019 coverage. Support rabble.ca today for as little as $1 per month!

 

Ole Hendrickson

September 18, 2019

ENVIRONMENT

POLITICS IN CANADA

 Chema Martínez Broncano/Flickr

Ignoring the advice of her own expert panel, Trudeau's environment minister Catherine McKenna has exempted more projects and further gutted Canada's environmental assessment regime.

The Trudeau government's controversial Impact Assessment Act (Bill C-69) and its key regulation (the Physical Activities Regulations, better known as the "project list") came into force on August 28 -- slipped through during the summer season.

In 2012 the Harper government slashed the number of projects requiring environmental assessment, arguing that only the biggest projects have an impact on the environment.

Under the Impact Assessment Act, many nuclear projects can now proceed unimpeded by impact review requirements to assess effects on the environment, health, social or economic conditions; effects of malfunctions or accidents; or impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The Harper government's 2012 project list did require assessment of new uranium mines or mills. The new list requires assessment only if a uranium mine or mill has a capacity over 2,500 tonnes per day.

The 2012 list required assessment of new nuclear reactors. The new list allows reactors generating up to 200 million watts of heat to be built anywhere without assessment. 

Furthermore, the new list allows nuclear waste storage facilities to be built on the sites of any of these so-called "small modular reactors" without assessment.

This paves the way for a Canadian landscape dotted with mass-produced nuclear reactors -- the vision of a "roadmap" released by Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi in November 2018.  

Canada's nuclear industry giants -- Cameco and SNC-Lavalin -- were deeply involved in these developments. The nuclear industry has long been the darling of the federal government.

Cameco operates the world's largest uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan, the world's largest commercial uranium refinery in Blind River, Ontario, and the Port Hope, Ontario uranium conversion facility. But it has been losing global market share to facilities in Kazakhstan. 

Competition is fierce. Uranium markets dried up after the Fukushima disaster. Rapid growth of renewables has virtually halted reactor construction. 

Under a secret 10-year, multi-billion-dollar contract put in place during the fall 2015 election period, the Harper government gave SNC-Lavalin, in alliance with two U.S. companies, ownership of "Canadian Nuclear Laboratories" (then a subsidiary of the Crown corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited).

The contract allows the alliance to carry out commercial activities -- including small nuclear reactor development -- at the federal government's heavily subsidized research facility in Chalk River, Ontario.

According to the federal lobbyist registry, Neil Bruce, former president of SNC-Lavalin, met with Michael Binder, former president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), to discuss "environment, climate, energy, infrastructure" on July 12, 2018.

The following week, on July 19, Tim Gitzel, president and CEO of Cameco, met with Christine Loth-Brown, a vice-president in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA), and with Jason Cameron, a CNSC vice-president. On July 26, Gitzel again met with these same two people, plus another CEAA vice-president. For that meeting he was accompanied by Pierre Gratton, president of the Canadian Mining Association.

On November 11, 2018, Gratton met with the following people, at the same time: Rumina Velshi, president, CNSC; Ron Hallman, president, CEAA; Christyne Tremblay, deputy minister, Natural Resources Canada; and Stephen Lucas, deputy minister, Environment and Climate Change Canada. 

Canada's senior bureaucrats gutted environmental assessment after this series of meetings.

The SNC-Lavalin affair has ripped the veil off the domination of Canada by a corporate oligarchy. Government departments, regulatory bodies such as the CNSC and CEAA (now the "Impact Assessment Agency"), and elected officials behave like corporate lapdogs.

The Conservatives handed the federal government's nuclear research facilities over to SNC-Lavalin and its partners, along with a juicy multi-year, multi-billion-dollar contract. The Liberals pulled out all the stops so SNC-Lavalin could continue to hold federal contracts, despite fraud and corruption charges. 

Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi released a road map promoting new nuclear reactors. 

Environment Minister Catherine McKenna exempted these reactors and their wastes from impact assessment.

The 2015 Liberal election promise to restore public trust in environmental assessment has been broken.

Ole Hendrickson is a retired forest ecologist and a founding member of the Ottawa River Institute, a non-profit charitable organization based in the Ottawa Valley.

Image: Chema Martínez Broncano/Flickr

RELATED ITEMS

With Bill C-69, a weak environmental assessment system is about to get worse

Canada needs an environmental assessment regime focused on positive impacts, not one that ignores even more projects and their environmental impacts.

How can we counter corporate capture of government?

The SNC-Lavalin affair rips the veil off the hidden world of corporate influence on government decision-making.

New federal environmental review laws fall short of promises

C-69's top-line principles and commitments are laudable, but their execution falls short.

http://www.rabble.ca/columnists/2019/09/conservatives-and-liberals-advance-corporate-canadas-nuclear-dreams#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=5d94db2a84b743e5&at_ab=per-2&at_pos=0&at_tot=5

NorthReport
Paladin1

R.E.Wood wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

 

Intensive purpose.

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Blackface, lying about your credentials, SNC Lavalin - just one and the same.

https://www.straight.com/news/1308071/andrew-scheer-falsely-held-himself-out-insurance-broker-his-way-becoming-conservative

Hardly the same ballpark.

NorthReport

Lying before you even get into office is grounds to never to be allowed into office

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

Lying before you even get into office is grounds to never to be allowed into office

Padding a resume compared to everything Trudeau has done before office, let alone while in office?   Nothing Trudeau would do would ever make you choose Scheer over him. Based I guess on padding a resume. Okay. Trudeau can do no wrong to some Canadians.

I'll pick the guy who doesn't grope women, laugh at distraught first nations people, repeatedly violate our ethics laws, dress up like a POC, and so on.

Paladin1

Aristotleded24 wrote:

The NDP has already said they will not work with the Conservatives. Given Liberal mis-steps on things like buying pipelines and First Nations issues, the NDP may not be able to work with them either.

This really bothers me. The NDP shouldn't work for the NDP and they shouldn't work for NDP voters either. They should work for ALL Canadians. NDP, Green, Bloc, Conservative, Liberal, Independent.

We all pay taxes and we all live in this country together.  Not everything the Liberals or Conservatives do is bad. Liberals and pot is a good example. Once Canadians pick a government ALL governments should work together to make Canada better and that doesn't mean trying to road block every decision the government in power makes.

bekayne

R.E.Wood wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

Incense and peppermints.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

KarlL

Ken Burch wrote:

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

And in the 2017 UK election. 

But then again, this whole idea is ridiculously fanciful.  Based on current voter intentions, the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to be the only two parties within sniffing distance of forming a government.  Unless the next 2 1/2 weeks changes things dramatically, everyone else will have a Corporal's Guard-sized caucus. 

The Liberals will therefore either form the Government or form a sizeable opposition.  I don't see any prospect of an outcome like that from Stephane Dion 2006-08 or Michael Ignatieff 2008-11, or for that matter the NDP's Stephen Lewis in Ontario 1977-78 and Michael Cassidy 1978-81 when they propped up the Davis Conservative government.  In each of those cases, the opposition parties were enfeebled and broke. They did not want to precipitate an election because the likely outcome was going  to be a majority Conservative government, which was indeed what happened in both instances at the very next election. 

Organizationally and financially, the Liberals' capacity to campaign is now much closer to that of the Conservatives than it was in 2006-11 and Liberals would be much less concerned about walking into a meat grider if they were to bring down the government, if indeed it were to be a Conservative one. 

Also, in the early days after the election, the likely outcome will be a Liberal minority government with negotiated NDP and/or Green support - even if there is a Conservative plurality of seats.  Unless that is, you are saying that the NDP wouldn't support the Liberals or you think that the Greens and Bloc will be numerous enough and willing to prop up a Conservative government - or that it will be a Conservative majority, in either of which cases, the matter will be out of the Liberals hands.

NorthReport

You are just perpetuating the big lie.

There is one thing you can count on though - right-wing Liberals will not be bringing down right-wing Conservatives, and Canadian political history confirms it. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

KarlL wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

And in the 2017 UK election. 

But then again, this whole idea is ridiculously fanciful.  Based on current voter intentions, the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to be the only two parties within sniffing distance of forming a government.  Unless the next 2 1/2 weeks changes things dramatically, everyone else will have a Corporal's Guard-sized caucus. 

The Liberals will therefore either form the Government or form a sizeable opposition.  I don't see any prospect of an outcome like that from Stephane Dion 2006-08 or Michael Ignatieff 2008-11, or for that matter the NDP's Stephen Lewis in Ontario 1977-78 and Michael Cassidy 1978-81 when they propped up the Davis Conservative government.  In each of those cases, the opposition parties were enfeebled and broke. They did not want to precipitate an election because the likely outcome was going  to be a majority Conservative government, which was indeed what happened in both instances at the very next election. 

Organizationally and financially, the Liberals' capacity to campaign is now much closer to that of the Conservatives than it was in 2006-11 and Liberals would be much less concerned about walking into a meat grider if they were to bring down the government, if indeed it were to be a Conservative one. 

Also, in the early days after the election, the likely outcome will be a Liberal minority government with negotiated NDP and/or Green support - even if there is a Conservative plurality of seats.  Unless that is, you are saying that the NDP wouldn't support the Liberals or you think that the Greens and Bloc will be numerous enough and willing to prop up a Conservative government - or that it will be a Conservative majority, in either of which cases, the matter will be out of the Liberals hands.

I was thinking more of how it would play out in the election after this if the Liberals formed a grand coalition after this one.  The LPC will almost certainly not have an Ignatieff-type collapse during this campaign if they've held their vote together up until now.

KarlL

Ken Burch wrote:

KarlL wrote:
  

Ken Burch wrote:

You would think the Liberals would remember what four years of keeping the Harper government in power in a minority, and turning down the chance to replace them at the head of a progressive coalition when most of the country would have cheered them on for leading that coalition, did to them in 2011.

You'd think they'd also remember what such a coalition did to the British Liberal Party in the 1922 and 1924 elections.

And in the 2017 UK election. 

But then again, this whole idea is ridiculously fanciful.  Based on current voter intentions, the Conservatives and the Liberals are going to be the only two parties within sniffing distance of forming a government.  Unless the next 2 1/2 weeks changes things dramatically, everyone else will have a Corporal's Guard-sized caucus. 

The Liberals will therefore either form the Government or form a sizeable opposition.  I don't see any prospect of an outcome like that from Stephane Dion 2006-08 or Michael Ignatieff 2008-11, or for that matter the NDP's Stephen Lewis in Ontario 1977-78 and Michael Cassidy 1978-81 when they propped up the Davis Conservative government.  In each of those cases, the opposition parties were enfeebled and broke. They did not want to precipitate an election because the likely outcome was going  to be a majority Conservative government, which was indeed what happened in both instances at the very next election. 

Organizationally and financially, the Liberals' capacity to campaign is now much closer to that of the Conservatives than it was in 2006-11 and Liberals would be much less concerned about walking into a meat grider if they were to bring down the government, if indeed it were to be a Conservative one. 

Also, in the early days after the election, the likely outcome will be a Liberal minority government with negotiated NDP and/or Green support - even if there is a Conservative plurality of seats.  Unless that is, you are saying that the NDP wouldn't support the Liberals or you think that the Greens and Bloc will be numerous enough and willing to prop up a Conservative government - or that it will be a Conservative majority, in either of which cases, the matter will be out of the Liberals hands.

I was thinking more of how it would play out in the election after this if the Liberals formed a grand coalition after this one.  The LPC will almost certainly not have an Ignatieff-type collapse during this campaign if they've held their vote together up until now.

 

There is no precedent for it and no pointers toward it.  But if you would like a historical analogue, it is 1979-80.  A Liberal majority led by a flamboyant but polarizing leader was replaced at the next election by a Conservative minority led by a bland nonetity, only to have the Liberals lead the defeat that Conservative government within less than a year (sorry about that inconvenient bit of history, North Report)

Hurtin Albertan

You'd have to replace one or both leaders for it to work. 

The Conservatives HATE Trudeau, I can't see them ever working with him, but maybe with someone else in charge of the Liberals.  Maybe.  Never with Trudeau at least that's the way I see it.

I'm not convinced the Liberals would work with Stephen Scheerper, as bland as the guy seems to be the Liberals have spent a lot of time and effort to convince us it will be Handmaids Tale 2019 Version if he gets elected.

Misfit Misfit's picture

R.E.Wood wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

 But for all intense and purposes 

Intents and purposes.

That was likely autocorrect that did that.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

You are just perpetuating the big lie.

There is one thing you can count on though - right-wing Liberals will not be bringing down right-wing Conservatives, and Canadian political history confirms it. 

Joe Clark wishes this was true.

NorthReport

Red Tory

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

You are just perpetuating the big lie.

There is one thing you can count on though - right-wing Liberals will not be bringing down right-wing Conservatives, and Canadian political history confirms it. 

Joe Clark wishes this was true.

Joe Clark was not a right-wing Tory(that's half the reason they replaced him with Mulroney) and the Liberals, at that point, were not a right-wing party as they are now on economic issues.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Plus...in all liklihood Clark wanted the no-confidence motion to pass that night.  He may have thought he could replicate the conditions which produced the 1958 Diefenbaker landslide-a PC minority government facing a Liberal opposition in which a long-standing francophone leader was replaced by a Anglo-Ontarian with limited or rusty party political skills, who made a huge rookie mistake, combined with the Tory prime minister finding a way to form a working alliance with the Quebec premier.

In 1958, it was Diefenbaker facing the newly chosen Lester Pearson, who demanded that the Tories turn over the government without an election, thus giving Dief a pretext to fight a snap election on Liberal arrogance with the backing of Maurice Duplessis.

In 1980, it could easily have been Clark facing off against a badly out-of-practic John Turner-he was always presented as Pierre Trudeau's certain successor when PET did finally retire-with Rene Levesque doing what he could to help the PC's simply in the belief that a PC landslide would create the conditions for a successful independence referendum.

If PET hadn't gone back on his promise to retire, Clark could have pulled that off.

For evidence, look at the way the '84 election played out, with Mulroney as the new Tory leader facing Turner and the PQ clearly doing everything it could to help the PC's in Quebec.

brookmere

NorthReport wrote:
There is one thing you can count on though - right-wing Liberals will not be bringing down right-wing Conservatives, and Canadian political history confirms it.

Arthur Meighen. Anyway, this whole thing is ridiculous. For the Liberals, it's never been about ideology - just about winning.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Ken Burch wrote:

Plus...in all liklihood Clark wanted the no-confidence motion to pass that night.

I remember that budget night pretty clearly. We had television even then, and I watched the vote in the HOC. There was no indication at all that Clark intended to lose the vote on his budget. What all those who were present said was that he had included provisions that were unpopular enough that the Liberals decided to go for an election. Mainly, it was an increase in the gasoline tax. It was reported at the time that Clark had simply failed to count votes and brought down his budget without a committment from the Creditistes to support it, although he fully expected that they would.

The election campaign that followed was the funniest one of my lifetime. Trudeau had already resigned as leader and the convention to replace him was scheduled for a few months later. (John Turner was the favourite.) But when the writ dropped, Keith Davey and the other Lib powers decided that Trudeau had to come back for one last great. PET even promised that he would not serve out the full term and run again, but would resign before the next election. John Crosbie, a right winger but very witty, described Trudeau's campaign pitch as "Vote for me, and I'll resign."

I remember like yesterday that smug bastard Trudeau coming out after he had been pronounced the winner, and smilingly saying "Welcome to the nineteen eighties." Sigh. We did get the Charter out of it, though.

JKR

I thought Clark lost the non confidence vote because his people lost count of how many Socreds they needed to survive the vote.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The election campaign that followed was the funniest one of my lifetime. Trudeau had already resigned as leader and the convention to replace him was scheduled for a few months later. (John Turner was the favourite.) But when the writ dropped, Keith Davey and the other Lib powers decided that Trudeau had to come back for one last great. PET even promised that he would not serve out the full term and run again, but would resign before the next election. John Crosbie, a right winger but very witty, described Trudeau's campaign pitch as "Vote for me, and I'll resign."

I remember that budget very well too.   A very young version of me was a newly minted  member of my local NDP federal riding association executive.

We had held an executive meeting at a member's house the night before the vote.   While we knew Joe Clark's government was going to fall eventually, we didn't know when and under what circumstances.   We were just starting to make plans for the inevitable "next election" and joked about "unless the government falls tomorrow".

The very next day, to our surprise, the government did indeed fall and we were into a winter election!   And, we won our constituency for the NDP in February, 1980 (we had lost by a hair to the Tories in 1979).

Our canvassers during that election campaign all wore orange toques, and yup, it was bloody cold being out campaigning at times.    But it was worth it.

KarlL

The PCs did not expect to lose until deep into the day.  Nancy Jamieson (who incidentally, is married to Abacus pollster Bruce Anderson) was said to be the person in the PMO who first warned them that the numbers weren't there.  There was a scramble to get Flora MacDonald back from Europe and to get one of their members out of Hospital but that would not have saved them once the Creditistes decided to abstain, given that they lost 139-133.  

Also, it was not Turner at that time I believe but Donald Macdonald who was headed for the Liberal leadership.

This is all very well covered in Jeffrey Simpson's Discipline of Power and in Christina McCall's Grits.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

KarlL

Ken Burch wrote:

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

He was gone at the end of the 1974-79 term so was out of parliament by then but there was someone travelling other than Flora MacDonald.

bekayne

Ken Burch wrote:

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

He wasn't in Parliament, but I think he was sent to the Mideast to clear up the Jerusalem embassy mess.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

bekayne wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Wasn't Stanfield off in Syria on some sort of diplomatic mission that day?  

He wasn't in Parliament, but I think he was sent to the Mideast to clear up the Jerusalem embassy mess.

Thanks for the clarification-I have a vague memory of the guy being called "Stanfield of Arabia" as a result of whatever mission he happened to be involved with in the Mideast.

Sean in Ottawa

An electoral arrangement between the LPC and CPC could happen and could be popular. Here is one way it would come about:

The Conservatives and the PP total is not a majority.

The Liberals, Greens and NDP total is not a majority.

The BQ have the balance of power.

In this circumstance many Canadians would prefer a LPC-CPC arrangement than any deal with the BQ. The BQ likely would have difficulty making an arrangement in any case given the feelings towards Singh.

The LPC would prefer to keep the Greens, BQ and NDP out: Liberals would not want to help any of these parties and they would not want to be forced on issues relating to the pipeline. Keeping the BQ out of balance of power would be a publicly workable excuse to work with the CPC.

Scheer would be able to say he was saving Canada from BQ extortion and saving the pipeline. He would exact a price but the Liberals could pay it.

The BQ, the Greens and the NDP  would likely have a very difficult time cooperating on anything even though they agree in terms of opposition to the pipeline. Without a partner in the Liberals they have little incentive to paper over differences. I think both the BQ and the NDP would face severe political consequences if they were to work together given the obvious human rights incompatibility. Both would rather be in opposition.

If the Greens, Liberals and NDP formed a majority - without the BQ, this is the nightmare scenario for Trudeau and would be less easy to predict. Trudeau would not be able to easily justify not working with them but the price would be the pipeline among other things. Trudeau has more political cover generally to work with the Greens and NDP but none on the pipeline. His party would suffer serious damage and the election that would follow (quickly) could be devastating. The one consolation prize for Liberals would be that the Greens and NDP could be near bankrupt at a new campaign in less than a year.

The NDP and Greens would have no problem backing the Liberals politically if this were the way to stop a CPC-LPC government and to stop the pipeline. They would both enjoy Trudeau bing dragged off the fence leaving either them in opposition or working with them losing the Liberal's right flank. This would be enough for NDP and Greens to be civil with each other when absolutely necessary for a few months.

A plurality of Canadians would be reasonably happy with a CPC-LPC government for a short time to keep out the BQ and a differentl plurality would be okay with an LPC, Green and NDP government.

Green and NDP supporters would be delighted to see what happens to the Liberals if they either join the Greens and NDP and lose their centre right support or join the Conservatives and lose any progressive credentials.

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Love these memories:

John Crosbie, a right winger but very witty, described Trudeau's campaign pitch as "Vote for me, and I'll resign."

I have a vague memory of the guy being called "Stanfield of Arabia" as a result of whatever mission he happened to be involved with in the Mideast.

You could build a very funny political satire around this event.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

KarlL wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

 

Rubbish.  But perhaps Stephen Lewis could shed some light on his motivations for having carried Bill Davis' PC government for the full four years 1977-81.  

This is a federal election WTF are you on about. Oh wait you are a Liberal who is here to attack the NDP. Oh well you seemed intelligent at first.

KarlL

kropotkin1951 wrote:

radiorahim wrote:

Most likely Tories and Liberals would cooperate in a coalition from hell.

 

 

Rubbish.  But perhaps Stephen Lewis could shed some light on his motivations for having carried Bill Davis' PC government for the full four years 1977-81.  

This is a federal election WTF are you on about. Oh wait you are a Liberal who is here to attack the NDP. Oh well you seemed intelligent at first.

____________________________________________________________________

You're right, my comment was a bit assinine but honestly, you have otherwise intelligent people on this particular thread musing about some grand Conservative-Liberal coalition as a plausible outcome. 

Quite aside from the visceral antipathy between Trudeau and the Conservatives that would make it impossible, do you really have any basis at all for that speculation? 

It happened in WWI over conscription and even then split the Liberal party in two. 

Otherwise, you have what, one example?  The reluctance of Dion to pull the plug at a time when the Liberal Party was on life support, broke and facing at the next election what did indeed unfold in 2011.  The NDP was in the ascendant after the 2008 election and so was eager to get on with it.  Are you really surprised that in their parlous state at the time the Liberals pulled their punches? Even in that situation Dion was prepared to try it prior to Harper obtaining prorogation.

So you have the Auld enemies bedding down with one another in some ridiculous dystopian fantasy scenario, speaking as though it is a likelihood.  I know you dislike both of the parties, perhaps even equally but to imagine them coming together flies in the face of history and common sense.

And by the way, although my Lewis example was not on point (given that it was provincial and the NDP was by then the 3rd party again) and admittedly a bit peevishly made, I was simply pointing out that a bruised NDP under the outbound Lewis and the incoming Cassidy were prepared to support a PC minority government for the full four years.  And before anyone tells me that the Ontario Liberals were to the right of the Ontario PCS, that was becoming less true under Stuart Smith than it had been under Bob Nixon.

JKR

I think there is less than a 1% chance of a Liberal-Conservative “grand coalition” and more than 99% of Canadians, not including some Babblers, know this.

brookmere

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In this circumstance many Canadians would prefer a LPC-CPC arrangement than any deal with the BQ.

That's the very reason why the Liberals would force the Cons to ally with the BQ if the Cons needed support to form government. That would greatly damage the credibility of the Cons. On the other hand, if the Liberals supported the Cons, it would wreck their own credibility - vote Liberal, get Conservative.

As KarlL pointed out, this should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, and I think it is obvious to pretty much everyone on this forum. I think we're just seeing some fantasizing to compensate for the upcoming poor performance of the NDP.

NorthReport

The NDP are slowly showing they still do have a pulse and according to the latest poll are only 4% out of the support they received in 2015 If Singh continues to exceed expectations the NDP might bounce back to their 2015 levels of support at last I also think the Liberals yesterday challenging the compensation to Indigenous children will hurt the Liberals because of their double speak

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
In this circumstance many Canadians would prefer a LPC-CPC arrangement than any deal with the BQ.

That's the very reason why the Liberals would force the Cons to ally with the BQ if the Cons needed support to form government. That would greatly damage the credibility of the Cons. On the other hand, if the Liberals supported the Cons, it would wreck their own credibility - vote Liberal, get Conservative.

As KarlL pointed out, this should be obvious to any reasonably intelligent person, and I think it is obvious to pretty much everyone on this forum. I think we're just seeing some fantasizing to compensate for the upcoming poor performance of the NDP.

Yep -this is why this place is suffering a slow death. Arrogant people questioning the intellegence of any who disagree with them. Why do you think people stop posting?

My point was argued with logic the answer was logic-free and insult only.

Absolutely the Conservatives and Liberals hate each other. I have never been one to promote grand coalition conspiracies or to say that these parties are exactly the same.

I did argue with - considerable thought - that this time is different. The difference being the potential combination of a BQ balance of power together with the pipeline debate.

Either choice for the the Liberals would be deadly: they have to ally with the Greens and NDP (their normal preferred political position) which certainly means loss of the pipeline or with the Conservatives to build the pipeline. Either way the centre party loses part of its internal coalition between moderate right and moderate left of the Liberal party.

This is less easy to predict. And no it does not take a lack of intelligence to see the Liberals in an impossible position where a grand coalition is one of two bad possibilities and not necessarily the worst. Here people think that building a pipeline is politically absurd. Out in the real world, it is not clear cut. A national project being blocked by a separatist party or being blocked at all may be a bigger issue. Like I said this is the Trudeau nightmare. It is the split that makes Canada almost ungovernable and a new election another possibility.

That said it is not without some possibilities: if the Liberals propose the idea and the Conservatives reject it (on Liberal terms) the Liberals get to say the Conservatives blocked the pipeline - a talking point they have already used.

Sean in Ottawa

It is obvious that some Liberals here are trying to convince others (using insults) that the Libeals are not pro-pipeline. Everyone who is not Liberal here knows they are. That is why this coalition (by that I mean loose short term arrangement not actualy coaliton) is possible. I think it is only likely in the event of a BQ balance of power. But the Liberals are in a desperate spot in a minority situation given the pipeline split in this country. That is not stupidity - that is a fact.

R.E.Wood

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

It is obvious that some Liberals here are trying to convince others (using insults) that the Libeals are not pro-pipeline. Everyone who is not Liberal here knows they are. That is why this coalition (by that I mean loose short term arrangement not actualy coaliton) is possible. I think it is only likely in the event of a BQ balance of power. But the Liberals are in a desperate spot in a minority situation given the pipeline split in this country. That is not stupidity - that is a fact.

Thanks Sean for your thoughtful analysis of potential coalition scenarios. I wonder, is it not possible that the Liberals and BQ could form government together without drawing the ire of the rest of Canada outside Quebec?  If such a  government were to give Quebec more-or-less whatever the BQ demanded, while also being free to govern the rest of the country as the Liberals see fit, could that not be a recipe for a minority government that could last longer than average? And regarding the pipeline, is it also not possible that in such a government the BQ might not object to the expansion of a pipeline between Alberta and BC, since it doesn't involve Quebec (and they really don't give a damn about the rest of the country)? I certainly can envision such a scenario playing out.

Whether that would be good for the long-term health of the Liberals is an entirely different matter! Some across the country would rage against an alliance with the BQ separatists, and would be increasingly angered if Quebec was seen to be given a blank cheque. But I wonder if the Liberals might not worry about the long-term implications so much as the short-term goal of staying in power at all costs.

Of course it is possible the Liberals could join forces with the NDP and Greens in a hypothetical minority situation as well, but surely that would come with a demand for electoral reform, as well as a demand to cancel the pipeline expansion... I think it's quite clear where the Liberals stand on those two issues (they hypocritically lied and then buried electoral reform, and they bought the pipeline!), so I have a hard time seeing how those specific roadblocks could be overcome in a way that would enable such a coalition to agree to common ground, even if it exists on other issues.

Of course the Liberals and Conservatives agree on those issues (no electoral reform; yes to pipeline expansion), so I can see their MP's voting in alignment on issues like that, even if I can't envision them forming an actual coalition in government.

It's fascinating to speculate on various scenarios, but of course there are a couple weeks left in the campaign, Scheer seems to be on a downward trajectory and the subject of several negative stories, while Trudeau may be recovering from his scandal just in time. The efficiency and dispersion of the vote for each party will be of greatest importance. The Conservatives support is heavily weighted in Alberta and the prairies and I don't see them gaining in Quebec or Ontario, making their vote less efficient than that of the Liberals. A few percentage points of a lead for the Liberals could yet result in a majority government. Conversely, the NDP vote appears to be remaining dangerously low and lacking in any regional strength (despite the apparent recent spread opening up between the NDP and Greens), so the NDP campaign likely comes down to individual candidates running campaigns in their ridings and working for smaller pockets of support. At this point I still see a major loss of seats for the NDP, with very few new gains. (And yes, since I've been a vocal critic of his, I should add that I do think Singh has been doing a fairly good job during the campaign, outperforming himself, but I'm afraid it's too little too late.)

Sean in Ottawa

I think that the Liberals would not work with the BQ easily. First they lose the pipeline which is too big of a loss for them. Second Trudeau's seat is in Quebec. I think there is no chance that he would want to raise the obvious controversy of a Quebec Liberal aligning with a Quebec separatist party -- this would not appear to be a big issue here but between potential Conservative-Liberal switchers it could be devastating. Also, Trudeau is doing all he can not to be drawn in to the Constitutional debate in Quebec. The BQ would drive this home without mercy and Trudeau is not compatible with a compromise here- his brand as son of the PM who brought the Charter would not recover.

Either Trudeau finds a face-saving compromise with the Conservatives for a few months with a government that does next to nothing but a handful of things they agree on or Trudeau opts for the risk of a new election hoping the Liberals, NDP and Greens do well enough to form a government (an agreement with the Conservatives might be preferable as I explain below). A few years ago an agreement with the BQ was thinkable due to the moderation and pragmatism of Duceppe and the proximity of the BQ to Liberal, NDP and Green interests. Now, I think the BQ are extremely difficult to work with since on pipelines and environment they are incompatible with Conservatives and on immigration and race they are incompatible with the Liberals, Greens and NDP. The only reason I think a Conservative-Liberal agreement is possible is that the other options for both parties (including forcing an election) may be worse this time.

I will explain why a pact with the Conservatives is better for the Liberals. It does not involve an alliance but rather a cease-fire. An option for the Liberals and Conservatives is a pact not be involved in government but, for the interest of the nation, an agreement not to bring down the government for a fixed term. The advantage these parties have in working with each other is that they would not have to vote for each other ever. Whichever got the most seats, the other could simply abstain on all votes as the remainder of the House would not be strong enough to bring them down.

This is different than situations where the votes of partners would be required to have confidence. So either Trudeau or Scheer could even remain in place and in opposition to each other but the one with fewer seats could refrain from a confidence vote for the period of one year, for example. It would not take all that much agreement for that and may not taint the parties all that much. This is the only door open for avoiding a formal arrangement to an uncomfortable situation. Working with the NDP, Greens or BQ would not only require those parties not voting against but would need them voting for the government. I cannot see that being workable right now. That is likely much harder to do for all sides.

BTW we may see how even with FPTP we can get a situation where a government is almost impossible.

cco

R.E.Wood wrote:

Thanks Sean for your thoughtful analysis of potential coalition scenarios. I wonder, is it not possible that the Liberals and BQ could form government together without drawing the ire of the rest of Canada outside Quebec?  If such a  government were to give Quebec more-or-less whatever the BQ demanded, while also being free to govern the rest of the country as the Liberals see fit, could that not be a recipe for a minority government that could last longer than average? And regarding the pipeline, is it also not possible that in such a government the BQ might not object to the expansion of a pipeline between Alberta and BC, since it doesn't involve Quebec (and they really don't give a damn about the rest of the country)? I certainly can envision such a scenario playing out.

As a Quebecer, I don't see that happening (bearing in mind that I don't have a crystal ball, and all kinds of insane things have happened in politics here). It'd undermine each party's ideological base at a fundamental level.

For the last quarter-century, the Liberals have campaigned in Quebec on one basic line: "The Bloc's useless." Meanwhile, the Bloc campaigns on "Ottawa's hopeless". For the Liberals to give any kind of concessions the Bloc would find worthwhile, like a new constitutional accord, it'd require them to admit there was a legitimate reason for voting Bloc in the first place. A comparison might be made with the Conservatives allying with the Greens on a "stop pipelines" budget. There's ideological overlap in both of their coalitions, but there are some fundamental stumbling blocks there.

Also, for the Bloc to consent to forcing a pipeline through BC while ignoring the fact the same precedent would allow one to be forced through Quebec, it'd have to demonstrate the kind of ideological shortsightedness that I don't think it has. And what could the Liberals really promise in exchange? With a minority backed by the Bloc, they wouldn't have the legitimacy to push through a constitutional amendment even if it didn't require consent of provincial legislatures. At best, they could offer more money and a few tweaks like a single tax return. That's hardly the "beau risque" that'd justify putting a Bloc stamp of approval on Trudeau.

No, as counterintuitive as it seems, I can see the Bloc entering into an arrangement with either the Tories or the NDP – on different grounds – but not the Liberals. Both the Liberals and the Bloc would be writing off their own bases if they did so.

Pages