An accord, NOT a coalition, between Grit-NDP-Bloc (Part 2)

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

The idea of the Conservatives voting to keep Trudeau in power is absurd. The Liberals would either have to do a deal with the NDP or a new election would be forced after each party fails to get confidence. The Conservatives would be very happy to rush both the NDP and Liberals back into an eleciton should those two parties fail to work together. The Conservatives have absolutely no incentive to work with the Liberals and no incentive to have any party other than their own obtain confidence. The Conservatives are in the best position to go through instability and 2-3 elections in quick succession. The result, they believe, would be the near bankruptcy of their opposition. (I think it may not be as serious as Caniadans may become less susceptable to politcal advertising given the excesses we have seen.)

As much as you may hate the Liberals it is clear that they would have to work with the NDP after the election if there is no majority -- out of very obvious political necessity. Mulcair, for his part, has recognized this. He too would become a reluctant but willing partner if the Liberals had more seats. Given these circumstances it would be a game of chicken. Both parties aware taht the other party needs them hoping for a good hand in bargaining but each also aware that the need would be mutual.

Anyone who does not think the parties would have to work together should take a trip outside the political echo chamber and listen to what people on the street think. You would find that there is no debate. Canadians presume that the NDP and Liberals would work together. If you suggest that they might not, the result would be anger. Liberals would say it would be the NDP not their party that woudl refuse to do a deal while NDP supporters would say it is the reverse. Both would agree to punish whichever party would be so stupid as to leave Harper in power. And trust me they would.

I disagree that Harper only needs one of the two parties to conceed. Conceeding defeat is not a promise of confidence. Harper would need both parties to conceed to have a green light to continue. If one party conceeded and the other did not that party would still have the option to discuss and possibly support the one that did not conceed. If both were close in seats then either party could propose a government. In the light of that proposal the concession would be void.

mark_alfred

indigo 007 wrote:

Keep it simple. Just push the Liberals aside as they are no more than a political redundancy -a bunch of copy cat conservatives with nothing to offer.

Agreed.

Sean in Ottawa

The Liberal Party are not just copycats of the Conservatives. They remind me more of Larry Darrel and Darrel from the Newhart show and the venture "anything for a buck."

I see quite a few differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives but I am not comforted by them.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Harper's band want the end of the Liberal Party. They want the CPC to be the naturally governing party and presume that this mantle would go to them with the death or near death of the Liberals. They are spooked by the polls recently and would put a stake in the heart of the Liberal party given the opportunity.

 

I agree that the CPC wants to see a drastic decline in the LPC but I think they would hate to see the outright demise of the LPC as that would end much of the vote splitting that they benefit from. I think their preference is that the LPC, NDP, GPC, and BQ, split the non-CPC vote as much as possible. So they would love it if the GPC, NDP, and LPC were all at 19% in the polls and the BQ at 8%. Their nightmare would be a merger of the NDP, LPC, and GPC, and the disappearance of the BQ. Even worse for them, the CPC would hate to see electoral reform. They are against either preferential voting or even worse for them, proportional representation. PR would be their worst case scenerio.

Pondering

If the Liberals win a minority government they will present their legislation and it will be up to the NDP to accept it or take responsibility for felling the government.

If Mulcair were serious about wanting to work with Trudeau he would speak with him privately not lambast him publically. This is a tactic on Mulcair's part not a sincere offer.

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

Agreeing in advance to overthrow Harper unless he gets a majority government is a great way to get Harper elected with a majority.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

If the Liberals win a minority government they will present their legislation and it will be up to the NDP to accept it or take responsibility for felling the government.

If Mulcair were serious about wanting to work with Trudeau he would speak with him privately not lambast him publically. This is a tactic on Mulcair's part not a sincere offer.

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

Agreeing in advance to overthrow Harper unless he gets a majority government is a great way to get Harper elected with a majority.

Wow.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

If Mulcair were serious about wanting to work with Trudeau he would speak with him privately not lambast him publically. This is a tactic on Mulcair's part not a sincere offer.

Obviously it's a tactic since Justin has made it clear that he has no intention of making a coalition to get rid of Harper. Talking to him privately would be useless. This is a tactic to make him wear his refusal to end the Harper government publicly. What bothers you isn't that it's a tactic (which never seems to upset you when the Liberals are being "tactical", to use the term loosely) but that it's an effective one. It's showing him up as a person who would just as soon leave Harper in power if he can't replace him personally. It is highlighting his appalling lack of character.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If Mulcair were serious about wanting to work with Trudeau he would speak with him privately not lambast him publically. This is a tactic on Mulcair's part not a sincere offer.

Obviously it's a tactic since Justin has made it clear that he has no intention of making a coalition to get rid of Harper. Talking to him privately would be useless. This is a tactic to make him wear his refusal to end the Harper government publicly. What bothers you isn't that it's a tactic (which never seems to upset you when the Liberals are being "tactical", to use the term loosely) but that it's an effective one. It's showing him up as a person who would just as soon leave Harper in power if he can't replace him personally. It is highlighting his appalling lack of character.

I expect both parties to act tactically. I just disagree with the angle that it in some way makes Mulcair superior or makes the Liberals look bad.

Jacob Two-Two

Of course you disagree, because just like your idol you prefer Harper to stay in power if he can't be replaced by a Liberal majority.

NorthReport

Will the Liberals and NDP co-operate to stop Harper?

Anti-Conservative voters will press opposition leaders to commit to the co-operation they plan if there’s a chance to return Canada to a progressive agenda.

For 18 months after Justin Trudeau won the Liberal leadership, the Liberals maintained a healthy lead in the polls. Now that is being shaken by a Conservative resurgence.

 

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/04/05/will-the-liberals-a...

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Of course you disagree, because just like your idol you prefer Harper to stay in power if he can't be replaced by a Liberal majority.

That makes no sense. The success of a tactic doesn't ride on what anyone wants the outcome to be. It can be evaluated from a logical perspective and from available evidence.

Liberal support encompasses fiscal conservatives who would not take kindly to a pre-election agreement to a coalition with the NDP in the event of a Conservative minority.

Liberals are unlikely to win a majority. In my opinion the most likely outcome at this point is a Liberal minority.

Stockholm

Let's face it "Pondering" is such a sycophantic apologist for Justin Trudeau that if Trudeau shit on a plate, she would eat it with a knife and fork and claim it was Belgian semi-sweet chocolote!

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

If the LPC allows a minority CPC government's throne speech to pass, they should be prepared to then have to continuously vote with the CPC in order to avoid precipitating an unwanted early election. If the LPC allows the CPC throne speech to pass they will have to be prepared to vote for CPC bills they don't agree with in order to avoid an unwanted election. As Harper has shown in the past, he will not cooperate with the LPC during a minority government. Instead he will use the threat of causing an unwanted election to force the LPC to choose between passing unwanted CPC bills or taking criticism for causing an unwanted election and putting their partisan interests ahead of the country. The LPC would be wise to learn from the recent past.

NorthReport

The Napoleonic truth about coalitions: getting most seats doesn’t mean you win

The idea that the largest party in a hung parliament should dictate what form a coalition may take probably comforts the Conservatives, but it’s a nonsense

Imagine this. It’s Sunday 18 June 1815 near a little-known place called Waterloo. Battle lines are drawn when word comes down the line that Napoleon Bonaparte is to be declared the winner without a shot being fired. He, after all, has about 73,000 soldiers at his disposal, making his army larger than the one commanded by Wellington, who can only boast 68,000 (a sizeable proportion of whom aren’t even British). Never mind that Blücher’s Prussian force, supporting Wellington, is some 50,000 strong. The French, as the largest single contingent, have every right to run the show.

Absurd, no? Yet, if we fast forward two hundred years, this is exactly the argument that’s being made to support the idea that, should the Tories emerge as the largest party in another hung parliament after 7 May, they are somehow entitled to govern the UK for another five years or, at the very least, to get first go at trying to form a coalition or a minority administration.

This might be the common wisdom. But it is nonsense, nonetheless. As Napoleon found to his cost, you may have more troops than your nemesis; but if he’s managed to put together an alliance that outnumbers you then you will end up the loser, even if, to quote Wellington, it turns out to be a damned nice thing – the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life”.

Numbers count. Of course they do. But when it comes to forming governments, physics always trumps maths. Who gets to govern depends on what force they exert within the system, singly and collectively. Clearly, having large numbers of MPs helps. But so too does being (to use the political science jargon) pivotal – capable of deciding, by virtue of your ability as a party to jump either way, which one of a number of potential combinations can actually govern.

That is why, even though they underplayed their hand woefully in the ensuing negotiations, the Lib Dems were actually in a very powerful position in 2010, especially once they’d decided they wanted to be in government rather than merely support one from the outside.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/06/napoleonic-truth-co...

Pondering

NorthReport wrote:

The Napoleonic truth about coalitions: getting most seats doesn’t mean you win

Numbers count. Of course they do. But when it comes to forming governments, physics always trumps maths. Who gets to govern depends on what force they exert within the system, singly and collectively. Clearly, having large numbers of MPs helps. But so too does being (to use the political science jargon) pivotal – capable of deciding, by virtue of your ability as a party to jump either way, which one of a number of potential combinations can actually govern.

That is why, even though they underplayed their hand woefully in the ensuing negotiations, the Lib Dems were actually in a very powerful position in 2010, especially once they’d decided they wanted to be in government rather than merely support one from the outside.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/06/napoleonic-truth-co...

We almost had it right here in Canada if the Liberals had not backed out in 2008. We could end up with it in 2015 if Harper wins a precarious minority. It doesn't just depend on numbers. It depends on how the parties percieve the impact on their supporters.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

If the LPC allows a minority CPC government's throne speech to pass, they should be prepared to then have to continuously vote with the CPC in order to avoid precipitating an unwanted early election. If the LPC allows the CPC throne speech to pass they will have to be prepared to vote for CPC bills they don't agree with in order to avoid an unwanted election. As Harper has shown in the past, he will not cooperate with the LPC during a minority government. Instead he will use the threat of causing an unwanted election to force the LPC to choose between passing unwanted CPC bills or taking criticism for causing an unwanted election and putting their partisan interests ahead of the country. The LPC would be wise to learn from the recent past.

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Pondering wrote:

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

Could you please explain why you to believe the size of Harper's next minority has any bearing on how the Liberals would act in the next parliament? Also, what is a weak minority, and what is a strong one, and who gets to decide the difference? Finally, on what legal or constitutional principle would the Liberals be required to do anything other than vote against a throne speech from a "strong" Harper minority?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

If the LPC allows a minority CPC government's throne speech to pass, they should be prepared to then have to continuously vote with the CPC in order to avoid precipitating an unwanted early election. If the LPC allows the CPC throne speech to pass they will have to be prepared to vote for CPC bills they don't agree with in order to avoid an unwanted election. As Harper has shown in the past, he will not cooperate with the LPC during a minority government. Instead he will use the threat of causing an unwanted election to force the LPC to choose between passing unwanted CPC bills or taking criticism for causing an unwanted election and putting their partisan interests ahead of the country. The LPC would be wise to learn from the recent past.

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

I think the LPC would likely reference their election platform to justify what objections they have of the CPC's throne speech. If the LPC's election platform is more similar to the NDP's than the CPC's, it will be easy for the LPC to justify why they are cooperating with the NDP. I agree that the time for this to happen will be after the election, not before or during the election. I think the LPC's election platform will likely determine to what extent the LPC will be able to cooperate with the NDP and Greens. If the LPC's election platform has similarities to the NDP's, the LPC would be in a position to negotiate with the NDP even before the a throne Speech. This situation is similar to what happened in the UK in 2010 and will likely be happening again in the UK next month. If the UK has another hung Parliament next month, the events there will show us what could happen here. I think that negotiations between the parties in the UK will happen immediately after the election and well before their throne speech. Whatever happens in the UK will likely be very instructive to what may happen here this October.

JKR

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

Could you please explain why you to believe the size of Harper's next minority has any bearing on how the Liberals w ould act in the next parliament? Also, what is a weak minority, and what is a strong one, and who gets to decide the difference? Finally, on what legal or constitutional principle would the Liberals be required to do anything other than vote against a throne speech from a "strong" Harper minority?

I think if the NDP and LPC win 170 or more seats between them, they will be in a position to establish a government and replace the CPC government. This government would not necessarily have to be a coalition government. The NDP and LPC could make an agreement to pass all confidence motions for a specified time, say 3 or 4 years. So a minority NDP or LPC government could be established without the need for a coalition and if the CPC wins the most seats.

JKR

Here is a link from The Guardian that describes what a "confidence and supply" agreement could look like:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/politics-what-is-confide...

Quote:

An agreement between political parties that is less formal than a full-blown coalition but one that allows a minority party to play a part in government. Under “C&S”, as it is sometimes called, a smaller party, or parties, agree to support a larger party on its budget and any other votes in which other political parties propose to bring it down.

NorthReport

Canadian federal election most likely to end in minority government 

But for the Conservatives, the coalition word has an irresistible charm. It’s how they defeated the ill-fated Liberal-NDP attempt to push them out of office in 2008 without an election — and how fear of another possible coalition gave Harper his majority win in 2011.

So count on Harper to continually focus on the NDP and Liberals coalescing as a means of consolidating Conservative votes — and attracting apprehensive right-Liberals who are increasingly anxious about Trudeau’s inexperience and abilities.


http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/04/06/canadian-federal-election-most-like...

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Canadian federal election most likely to end in minority government 

But for the Conservatives, the coalition word has an irresistible charm. It’s how they defeated the ill-fated Liberal-NDP attempt to push them out of office in 2008 without an election — and how fear of another possible coalition gave Harper his majority win in 2011.

So count on Harper to continually focus on the NDP and Liberals coalescing as a means of consolidating Conservative votes — and attracting apprehensive right-Liberals who are increasingly anxious about Trudeau’s inexperience and abilities.

http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2015/04/06/canadian-federal-election-most-like...

That's why I was initially miffed when Mulcair seemed to close the door on the coalition idea.  That said, I'm glad he reversed this.  Trudeau likewise should reverse his position.  By closing the door on a legitimate option Trudeau just feeds the Conservative myth that coalitions are wrong (or, as they've called it, a "coup d'etat").  They're not wrong.  It's a perfectly legitimate option in parliamentary democracy. 

I'm not saying that a fully worked out coalition agreement should exist before the election -- that would be silly.  But to simply acknowledge coalitions and/or accords as a perfectly legitimate option come post-election (if the results merit), and to not continue to feed into the ignorant position of the Conservatives, is a good thing to do.  I'm glad Mulcair has done this.  Trudeau should follow suit.

sherpa-finn

At this point in the process, any acknowledgement by Trudeau that an accord with the NDP is a legitimate possibility will be portrayed as a sign of huge weakness by the CPC and allied media.  And will be used by them to try to bolster the CPC hold on swing-voting Blue Liberals / Red Tories, partic in Ontario.

But if Trudeau continues to denounce the accord option through the campaign, the CPC argument after the election (presuming no majority in Parliament) will be that the Cndn people never voted for an accord.

Trudeau's best bet at this point is to simply say "We will jump off that bridge if necessary in October."

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Pondering wrote:

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

Could you please explain why you to believe the size of Harper's next minority has any bearing on how the Liberals would act in the next parliament? Also, what is a weak minority, and what is a strong one, and who gets to decide the difference? Finally, on what legal or constitutional principle would the Liberals be required to do anything other than vote against a throne speech from a "strong" Harper minority?

A strong minority would be (in my opinion) around 150+ seats. A weak minority would be 115 seats or there-abouts. The Liberals party gets to decide the difference if they are the ones deciding whether or not to form a coalition with the NDP.

I think they would also take into account public sentiment on ISIS and on Harper's economic management.

The Liberals are neither required to vote for the Throne speech or against it. It's their choice. The Liberals will do whatever they believe is best for the party (in my opinion). 

Pondering

JKR wrote:

Here is a link from The Guardian that describes what a "confidence and supply" agreement could look like:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/politics-what-is-confide...

Quote:
An agreement between political parties that is less formal than a full-blown coalition but one that allows a minority party to play a part in government. Under “C&S”, as it is sometimes called, a smaller party, or parties, agree to support a larger party on its budget and any other votes in which other political parties propose to bring it down.

The same article says this:

As the opinion polls currently show that neither Labour nor the Conservativeswill secure the 326 seats necessary for an outright majority, some form of coalition or confidence and supply arrangement between at least two parties is likely. 

In Canada minority governments have typically not made any formal arrangements with other parties. They just run the government unless they are defeated in a confidence motion. I'm not saying that is the way it has to be, but it is a longstanding norm. 

From a poll I saw in the last couple of months Canadians don't think that poorly of Harper even if they didn't vote for him. He still gets high marks for economic management. I hope that changes and sentiment rises against him but in that case he wouldn't win a minority. 

No matter which party wins, Conservative, Liberals, NDP, they will expect to run the government alone

 

 

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Pondering wrote:

Canadians would expect representatives to listen to the Throne speech and evaluate specific legislation before them or have a specific reason for felling the government were Harper to win another minority. From the polls Canadians are not consumed by hatred of Harper. "He won and that pisses us off" would not be considered a valid reason.

If the LPC allows a minority CPC government's throne speech to pass, they should be prepared to then have to continuously vote with the CPC in order to avoid precipitating an unwanted early election. If the LPC allows the CPC throne speech to pass they will have to be prepared to vote for CPC bills they don't agree with in order to avoid an unwanted election. As Harper has shown in the past, he will not cooperate with the LPC during a minority government. Instead he will use the threat of causing an unwanted election to force the LPC to choose between passing unwanted CPC bills or taking criticism for causing an unwanted election and putting their partisan interests ahead of the country. The LPC would be wise to learn from the recent past.

All true. This will be a definitive election for the Liberals. If they lose they will be facing difficult decisions. I think they will choose to lead a coalition if they can justify it. To do so before a throne speech would take a really weak minority on Harper's part. If he has a strong minority the Liberals would feel compelled to have a specific objection related to the throne speech or the budget.

I think the LPC would likely reference their election platform to justify what objections they have of the CPC's throne speech. If the LPC's election platform is more similar to the NDP's than the CPC's, it will be easy for the LPC to justify why they are cooperating with the NDP. I agree that the time for this to happen will be after the election, not before or during the election. I think the LPC's election platform will likely determine to what extent the LPC will be able to cooperate with the NDP and Greens. If the LPC's election platform has similarities to the NDP's, the LPC would be in a position to negotiate with the NDP even before the a throne Speech. This situation is similar to what happened in the UK in 2010 and will likely be happening again in the UK next month. If the UK has another hung Parliament next month, the events there will show us what could happen here. I think that negotiations between the parties in the UK will happen immediately after the election and well before their throne speech. Whatever happens in the UK will likely be very instructive to what may happen here this October.

That makes sense but in Canada a minority government is not automatically a hung parliament. We have minority governments all the time without any accords or coalitions. Harper would not repeat his mistakes of 2008. 

My hope is that people will see that he made a mess of the economy so either the Liberals or the NDP will win at least a minority. 

Pondering

Trudeau has not denounced the option. He said they are too far apart on policy and on the Unity Act. If the situation presents itself that a coalition should be considered then I am sure the NDP won't make a stand on the Unity Act and policy would be negotiated and end up pretty moderate. There is loads of wiggle room in Trudeau's "no".  

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau has not denounced the option. He said they are too far apart on policy and on the Unity Act. If the situation presents itself that a coalition should be considered then I am sure the NDP won't make a stand on the Unity Act and policy would be negotiated and end up pretty moderate. There is loads of wiggle room in Trudeau's "no".  

Only a die hard Liberal could find "wriggle room" in the word "no". Hilariously telling.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

If the Liberals win a minority government they will present their legislation and it will be up to the NDP to accept it or take responsibility for felling the government.

You really don't seem to get it. Harper has to resign first. It's even possible for Harper to continue in governance if he gets less seats than the Liberals. All he has to do is offer a throne speech. At that point Trudeau has to decide to defeat the government or not.

There is no "automatic" entry to governance for the party that wins the most seats.

In this case, if the Trudeau sticks with his "no coalition" mantra vis the NDP, Trudeau actually pretty much has to abstain or vote with the government on the throne speech. unless he can present a reasonable case to GG that he can provide stable government. He can't do that without the support of one of the other parties -- this must be supported by a written contract, or agreement.

See 1963 General Election, where Diefenbaker held onto the government until Pearson was able to win the support of 6 members of the Social Credit to provide him with the votes needed to pass a throne speech, even though Pearson had more seats than Diefenbaker.

Given his policy views so far and the fact that he has not rejected it, outright, as he has with the NDP, it is more likely for the Liberals to form a coalition with the Consevatives, or an accord, or "strategic alliance", or whatever bullshit you will be seling if that ship sails. Dollars to donuts we are looking at a reprise of their 2009 position of take no initiative take no blame, a summary of their 2015 campaign to date, more or less.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Here is a link from The Guardian that describes what a "confidence and supply" agreement could look like:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/mar/16/politics-what-is-confide...

Quote:
An agreement between political parties that is less formal than a full-blown coalition but one that allows a minority party to play a part in government. Under “C&S”, as it is sometimes called, a smaller party, or parties, agree to support a larger party on its budget and any other votes in which other political parties propose to bring it down.

The same article says this:

As the opinion polls currently show that neither Labour nor the Conservativeswill secure the 326 seats necessary for an outright majority, some form of coalition or confidence and supply arrangement between at least two parties is likely. 

In Canada minority governments have typically not made any formal arrangements with other parties. They just run the government unless they are defeated in a confidence motion. I'm not saying that is the way it has to be, but it is a longstanding norm. 

From a poll I saw in the last couple of months Canadians don't think that poorly of Harper even if they didn't vote for him. He still gets high marks for economic management. I hope that changes and sentiment rises against him but in that case he wouldn't win a minority. 

No matter which party wins, Conservative, Liberals, NDP, they will expect to run the government alone

 

 

Actually, there is no longstanding norm in regard to minority PC/CPC governments where the LPC is the only viable party that can prop up a minority PC/CPC government. During our history there have been very few instances where the LPC has had to prop up a PC or CPC minority government. There have only been 4 Conservative/PC minority governments in our modern history. The LPC did not have to prop up the PC minority governments in 1957 and 1979 because the Social Credit Party held the balance of power during those very short minorities. So the only time in our history where the LPC had to prop up a minority PC/CPC government was the 2006 and 2008 Harper minorities and that period was such an unsatisfactory period for the LPC that they probably want to avoid repeating that like they would the plague. So there is no historically established and satisfactory way in which the LPC props up a PC/CPC minority government. The LPC still has to come up with a viable method for how it can operate within a minority CPC parliament, where they are the only viable party that can prop up the CPC.

Looking at what's happened elsewhere, the LPC could insist that the CPC agree to some basic ground rules in exchange for their cooperation. Minority governments have only worked well in Canadian history when the LPC has been the government in question because they have been able to cooperate with other parties. So if the LPC wins the most seats in this election, they will be able to easily form a minority government without any special agreements. But if the CPC wins the most seats they will have no natural partners to cooperate with. For the first time in our history at the federal level, it looks like minority government has become the norm. So the political culture here will have to come up with viable methods to deal with this new norm, especially when the CPC wins the most seats. I suspect the LPC would also find itself in a difficult position if the NDP were to win the most seats in a minority position, if they were the only viable party that could prop up a NDP government. History seems to show that the junior partner in a minority situation tends to suffer. One need look no further than to the UK where the Liberal Democrats have been decimated because of their support for the Conservative Party there.

Unionist

[url=http://www.straight.com/news/494681/bc-mp-nathan-cullen-talks-ndp-libera.... MP Nathan Cullen talks NDP-Liberal coalition to end Stephen Harper government[/url]

Quote:
If the upcoming federal election results in Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives winning a plurality of the seats in the House of Commons, NDP MP Nathan Cullen says his party will look to team up with the Liberals to form a coalition government.

 

socialdemocrati...

Cullen also asserted that an NDP government would move quickly to bring in a mixed-member proportional-representation system by the following election. He argued that a referendum on electoral reform won’t be necessary.

“If we seek that mandate and gain that mandate, we will see that as an opportunity to affect the voting system,” Cullen said. “Canadians weren’t consulted when first-past-the-post was brought in. It was just done.

BOOM.

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Canadians weren’t consulted when first-past-the-post was brought in. It was just done.

What electoral system did Canada use before "first-past-the-post was brought in"?

quizzical

Royal Dictate

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Were Canadians consulted on that one?

socialdemocrati...

I say pass a law for MMPR, and let the opponents try to build a majority coalition to repeal it.

Todrick of Chat...

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Cullen also asserted that an NDP government would move quickly to bring in a mixed-member proportional-representation system by the following election. He argued that a referendum on electoral reform won’t be necessary.

“If we seek that mandate and gain that mandate, we will see that as an opportunity to affect the voting system,” Cullen said. “Canadians weren’t consulted when first-past-the-post was brought in. It was just done.

BOOM.

 

 

I was never consulted that I was going to be a Canadian citizen; I was born to be slave to a society I want no part of.

We are all forced to be part of a system. 

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I say pass a law for MMPR, and let the opponents try to build a majority coalition to repeal it.

Exactly.

Todrick of Chat...

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Cullen also asserted that an NDP government would move quickly to bring in a mixed-member proportional-representation system by the following election.

I am glad the NDP has done this at the provincial level, works well in Manitoba.

socialdemocrati...

Or we could vote for the parties that aren't promising anything.

NorthReport

So what is the position of the 3 leading party leaders if Canadians elect a minority government?

Mulcair's position is clear - what about the other two?

Why aren't they being asked to provide an answer now, so that it is clear to voters before the election rather than being disappointed aftet the election? 

After all, if a leader is not clear with their position concerning minority government,  who would want to support them or their party as they obviously have something to hide.

NorthReport

Should we all be talking about an accord as opposed to a coalition?

quizzical

Mr. Magoo wrote:
Were Canadians consulted on that one?

 

maybe if there had been "Canadians" at the time they might've been. i know FN's weren't.

NorthReport

I think using the term coalition is unwise. An accord is more appropriate.

Why we probably won’t see a Liberal-NDP coalition after the next election

http://globalnews.ca/news/2128098/why-we-probably-wont-see-a-liberal-ndp...

NorthReport
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
An accord, NOT a coalition

"Nice ring!! You're engaged???"

"No, it's a promise ring.  We're PRE-engaged!"

NorthReport

You got it. Liberals don't got it.  Laughing

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I don't follow.  Is the NDP having sex with the Liberals on the basis of a promise of a promise ring?  Those cads!

NorthReport

NDP open to forming coalition government with Liberals to topple Tories

Finance critic Nathan Cullen says the prime aim is to get rid of Stephen Harper’s government.

NDP MP Nathan Cullen said that the party's number-one priority is toppling the Conservative government.


http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/23/ndp-open-to-forming-govern...

mark_alfred

This is good that they've framed the discussion around how beating Stephen Harper is potentially in post-election negotiations, rather than pre-election gerry-mandering.  Dion's campaign framed the election this way via his deal with May, which in the minds of some voters made the NDP seem to be an obstacle toward beating Harper.  That this isn't the discussion this time is good.

Pages