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

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

link Here's a CBC article with a video of Trudeau rejecting the coalition possibility and of Mulcair openly accepting it as a potential means to get rid of Stephen Harper.  Definitely side with Mulcair on this one.  Harper's gotta go.  The fact that Trudeau would allow Harper to continue on if Harper won a plurarilty, as in the time of 2006 to 2011, is astounding.

Misfit Misfit's picture

If I were Trudeau, I would want to hold the NDP to a minority government. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals will throw them out on a non-confidence budgetary vote in 2016 and force another election. The Liberals can use the opportunity to say that neither the Conservstes nor the NDP are an option. They will have twice as many seats as they do now, and will be in a much better situation to try to form government.

Northern PoV

 Any talk about post election cooperation feeds into Harper's strategy; a strategy he has used very successfully in the past.

Let's assume the current NDP lead holds.  To win, what's left of the Liberal vote needs to (a) vote NDP (and some will) or (b) vote Liberal.  If they go blue in certain ridings, we get another Harper gov't.      We (stupid Canadians) rejected the very reasonable Cullen/Murray model of one-election-cooperation to end this nightmare.  That happened a while ago and most Canadians missed it altogether. If they did catch it, they saw both parties remain highly partisan.  Let them keep that perception as it is politically disadvantageous  to Harper. ....

So having lost the earlier cooperation battle, Cullen made a tactical error.  Many times when Mulcair and Trudeau get trapped into answering the "C" question they flub it too.The media wants a story. (A story that Harper will use to his advantage.) Don't give them one."Polls are often wrong... we're seeking a mandate from the voters to implement our policies..lets talk about policies" or some equally boring reply is in order.

We can't get over confident.... Maude lost her injunction so 500k votes are potentially suppressed. Harper cheats and imho rarely gets caught - in&out, robocalls, DDM are just the tip of the berg.

Run to win.  stfu about the partisan horse race stuff!

-----------------

I just perused this thread... its mostly old & I'm reading with the benefit of hindsight he he, - there was at least one post musing about a Labour majority in the UK. Nuff said

NorthReport

Maybe folks might want to focus on defeating Harper first. Just sayin'

mark_alfred

Northern PoV wrote:

 Any talk about post election cooperation feeds into Harper's strategy; a strategy he has used very successfully in the past.

The Liberals under Dion and then Ignatieff rejected during the elections talk of post election cooperation.  And both times their vote went down.  The NDP under Layton and now Mulcair have been open to post-election cooperation, and it seems to not be hurting them.  So, the Liberals would be smart to get on board.  Also, regarding pre-election cooperation of the type that Cullen and Murphy advocated, this was tried in Alberta by the Liberals and Alberta Party and it was a miserable failure for these two parties.

Policywonk

I don't think cooperation talk helps Harper this time as the vast majority would prefer him not to be Prime Minister. And I don't think outright rejection helps the Liberals at all.

Northern PoV

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberals under Dion and then Ignatieff rejected during the elections talk of post election cooperation.  And both times their vote went down.  The NDP under Layton and now Mulcair have been open to post-election cooperation, and it seems to not be hurting them.  

My point was it HELPED Harper.  Did you not get that? Ex:  If the NDP get a 2 point boost but Harper gets 4 points, it is not a win for progressive Canadians, duh.

 The NDP may have been celebrating on May 2, 2011 but the cold reality was we got a Harper majority. How did that work out, eh?

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Northern PoV wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberals under Dion and then Ignatieff rejected during the elections talk of post election cooperation.  And both times their vote went down.  The NDP under Layton and now Mulcair have been open to post-election cooperation, and it seems to not be hurting them.  

My point was it HELPED Harper.  Did you not get that? Ex:  If the NDP get a 2 point boost but Harper gets 4 points, it is not a win for progressive Canadians, duh.

 The NDP may have been celebrating on May 2, 2011 but the cold reality was we got a Harper majority. How did that work out, eh?

Do you have any actual evidence that it helped Harper? Like, for instance, polling that shows how many voters in the last election based their decision partly on their dislike of coalitions? I haven't seen anything like that, but if you have, give us a link.

mark_alfred

Northern PoV wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

The Liberals under Dion and then Ignatieff rejected during the elections talk of post election cooperation.  And both times their vote went down.  The NDP under Layton and now Mulcair have been open to post-election cooperation, and it seems to not be hurting them.  

My point was it HELPED Harper.  Did you not get that? Ex:  If the NDP get a 2 point boost but Harper gets 4 points, it is not a win for progressive Canadians, duh.

 The NDP may have been celebrating on May 2, 2011 but the cold reality was we got a Harper majority. How did that work out, eh?

You stated that supporting a coalition possibility plays into Harper's hands by making those who favourably discuss the coalition possibility less popular, giving Harper more power.  But, the experience shows that the NDP, who openly favoured the coalition possibility, became more not less popular.  The Liberals, on the other hand, became less popular and had opposed the coalition possibility.  If the Liberals had been more definitive in their opposition to Harper via Ignatieff being open to a coalition (rather than his red door/blue door bullshit), then perhaps they wouldn't have collapsed as badly last time, and likely we'd have had an NDP/Liberal coalition or accord now.  Evidence suggests that the opposition party (the NDP) who favours coalitions rather than rejects it (the Libs) make gains rather than losses, right?

Northern PoV

mark_alfred wrote:

Evidence suggests that the opposition party (the NDP) who favours coalitions rather than rejects it (the Libs) make gains rather than losses, right?

Right. 

But you still missed the point.

NorthReport

Northern POV

Just more Liberal revisionist history - don't you ever get tired of it?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I disagree with this assumption that an NDP minority would not be propped up by the LIberals.

If the NDP wins the election,even with a minority,the electorate had made it clear that they want change and they reject the Conservatives.

If the Liberals worked with the Conservatives to quash an NDP government and send us back to the polls,the Liberals would be finished.

And as dumb as people think the Liberals are,I don't believe they are THAT stupid.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

alan smithee wrote:

I disagree with this assumption that an NDP minority would not be propped up by the LIberals.

If the NDP wins the election,even with a minority,the electorate had made it clear that they want change and they reject the Conservatives.

If the Liberals worked with the Conservatives to quash an NDP government and send us back to the polls,the Liberals would be finished.

And as dumb as people think the Liberals are,I don't believe they are THAT stupid.

I agree with you on this one, alan, and so does sean, if I recall correctly.

Northern PoV

Ahh... crystal ball gazing...  "Know why its so hard to predict the future? Cause no one knows whats going to happen." Wink

Minority Report:

1)  NDP plurality: Libs prop up NDP minority until they see a chance to gain. (Like Jack killing-off Paul.)

2)  Lib Plurality: NDP props up Lib minority until they see a chance to gain. 

3) Cons plurality: "1985 Ontario Accord" model likely as it has precedence therefore more defend-able ....And it would last as long as it is politically expedient to both parties.

 

NDPP

The NDP Muses About A Coalition -- This Should Be No Surprise To Anyone  -  by Michael Laxer

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/ndp-muses-about-co...

"...While the hacks pretend to think that the NDP are the only 'progressive' party and that the Liberals and Tories 'are the same', no one - and certainly not their leaders - actually believe this and the thirst among progressive, left-leaning and even most centrist voters to see Harper shown the door in a minority situation will be almost certainly impossible for either the NDP or Liberals to deny--especially as there is so much less that separates them ideologically than at any other time in our political history.

In the jockeying for position and advantage between the bourgeois progressive parties this is simply another predictable and even politically smart maneuver by the NDP that has very little downside for its leadership.

The party's left-wing and anti-capitalist supporters are trapped by the logic that they have used to continue to support the party despite its complete repudiation of anything even remotely like a radical or anti-capitalist platform and the NDP leadership knows they have nowhere electorally to go.

They can be - and are - taken entirely for granted, meaning that there is no left flank for Mulcair and his clique to worry about. This is why the NDP can set its sights completely on Liberal, Green and centrist voters which is what its strategy is and what it is doing rather explicitly..."

Bravo and damn straight too Michael Laxer! And so NDP cuckoldom remains true to its eternally unfaithful no difference party inamorata no matter how outrageous or repeated the betrayals. And the best may be yet to come...

Pondering

I was about to post on the same article.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/ndp-muses-about-co...

Just in case this hardline repudiation of the historic role of the party -- along with the entirely fictitious and facile notion that people who are committed to an ideologically principled leftist political movement somehow do not think that such a movement can ever win or take power -- was not clear enough, Cullen went on to offer this deep insight into political theory and what was wrong with socialist continuity within the NDP: "In my generation, socialism means a different thing." To him, the Star reports, it means communism, and he is no communist.

Indeed.

Given this, and given the pronounced right shift under Mulcair, why anyone is surprised to hear Cullen call for a possible coalition is a little difficult to understand.....

While the hacks pretend to think that the NDP are the only "progressive" party and that the Liberals and Tories "are the same," no one -- and certainly not their leaders -- actually believes this and the thirst among progressive, left-leaning and even most centrist voters to see Harper shown the door in a minority situation will be almost certainly impossible for either the NDP or Liberals to deny -- especially as there is so much less that separates them ideologically than at any other time in our political history.

Be careful what you wish for. Once the NDP wins on a centrist platform the coup will be complete. I don't think Nathan Cullen has given up on becoming the leader of the party either.

NDPP

Of course they'll be a coalition if necessary. That's realpolitic. The denial of this probability is unrealistic. And Harper's CONS need to leave, as all agree. So I too hope to see the NDP take power, but I fully expect them to demonstrate they are just another No Difference Party at the service of vested interests and  so perhaps at long last, afterwards, Canadians will register that and move forward towards a strong and authentic people's movement, and not keep electing these coke and pepsi serial sellouts.

socialdemocrati...

At my most cynical, the thing I hope for is some kind of electoral reform. So even if apathy and careerism creeps in and the NDP becomes as bad as the other two parties, they at least make room for reformers to have a bigger impact in the long run.

Seeing as provincial NDP governments have failed to deliver on promises of electoral reform, it's important that people keep asking this question over and over, and demand accountability. Make sure everyone knows the NDP is promising this, and get MPs to repeat that promise.

mark_alfred

Has there been a provincial NDP government that campaigned on electoral reform (specifically proportional representation) that broke that promise?  I don't believe so.

socialdemocrati...

I can't honestly remember that any provincial NDP campaigned on electoral reform, but I think a few of them at least had them in the (democratically decided) policy manuals at the time?

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I disagree with this assumption that an NDP minority would not be propped up by the LIberals.

If the NDP wins the election,even with a minority,the electorate had made it clear that they want change and they reject the Conservatives.

If the Liberals worked with the Conservatives to quash an NDP government and send us back to the polls,the Liberals would be finished.

And as dumb as people think the Liberals are,I don't believe they are THAT stupid.

I agree with you on this one, alan, and so does sean, if I recall correctly.

You do. And with same logic. I think a lot of people think this. I suspect you have to be even more coloured by disgust of the Liberals than I am to think they would be up for a suicide. But there is more at stake than this as this thread discusses there are more options than coalition.

Sean in Ottawa

Northern PoV wrote:

Ahh... crystal ball gazing...  "Know why its so hard to predict the future? Cause no one knows whats going to happen." Wink

Minority Report:

1)  NDP plurality: Libs prop up NDP minority until they see a chance to gain. (Like Jack killing-off Paul.)

2)  Lib Plurality: NDP props up Lib minority until they see a chance to gain. 

3) Cons plurality: "1985 Ontario Accord" model likely as it has precedence therefore more defend-able ....And it would last as long as it is politically expedient to both parties.

 

No-- not like Jack killing off Paul at all.

That did not happen. We have discussed this in many threads.

Layton put the knife in to the stinking corpse of a Liberal government that would have been defeated anyway. The NDP kept Martin in power until the could no longer do so and extracted good policy all along. Then came the day when this was no longer possible. This is quite different than the prospect of the Liberals propping up an NDP government until they see a good poll.

The 1985 Accord model is appropriate under some circumstances but not all -- I'll address that in another post.

Unionist

Michael Moriarity wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I disagree with this assumption that an NDP minority would not be propped up by the LIberals.

If the NDP wins the election,even with a minority,the electorate had made it clear that they want change and they reject the Conservatives.

If the Liberals worked with the Conservatives to quash an NDP government and send us back to the polls,the Liberals would be finished.

And as dumb as people think the Liberals are,I don't believe they are THAT stupid.

I agree with you on this one, alan, and so does sean, if I recall correctly.

Me too.

Sean in Ottawa

So let's discuss for a moment which arrangements are possible and when they are appropriate:

There are three

1) Coalition

2) Accord

3) case by case

Trudeau prefers the third. In most circumstances it is a bad idea -- lets look at why:

Why is case-by-case good?

A government may not want to negoiate a legislative agenda with a minor party. The threat of a costly election on a small party may discourage them from bringing them down. The motivation is also not there in the same way -- a party of 6 members does not usually hope to trigger an election and come out government. A small party may not expect much influence for their role and their supporters won't either.

Case by case is not good if the smaller party is not a minor party -- such as what we may see in October. First, the larger party may not have a strong mandate from the people to act alone. The voters of the smaller party have reason to expect that they have more influence on the government than just voting for it if their party is significant in the House and a substantial part of the confidence mandate. There is a democratic principle in terms of the weight of mandate. Secondly, there is a need to provide stability. A party that aspires to win and take power is in a different conflict of interest dealing with another party in government than a minor party. The large junior party will be reading the polls to bring the government down to win. This is against the interests of the citizens of the country. I get that this is what Trudeau wants to do and I do not respect him for it.

A coalition puts the legislative agenda bargain up front. It means horsetrading across a whole mandate and is more coherent (policies sometimes must work together not just in isolated votes). It is more stable and more adaptive as the horsetrading continues as new issues arise. There is political investment and liability among both partners meaning that the justification to pull such arrangment down would need to be explained. A coalition provides more goverment representation in the communities. It is a clearer reflection of the actual mandate from the people. It is truly cooperative government -- even among rivals. They are invested in the success of the government. A coalition is a sign of respect for the voters of both political parties involved and even for each other.

An Accord is like a hybrid. Certain terms and important initiatives are negotiated, an agreement is made for a term not to bring down the govenrment. But only one party governs -- and this is a problem if it does not have good representation across the country. It is also rather a blank cheque with no influence on any matter not considered when the bargain was drafted. The investment is not equal, the supporters of both parties are not equally respected either -- even though the smaller party is not really opposition they don't have participation and influence in government. It is a bit of a cop-out but sometimes it makes sense. The real purpose of an Accord -- in theory -- is when the junior party is a bit too small to be at the big table but too big to not work with over a term. They are rare becuase they are not the most democratic-- you are not in government but not free to truly oppose either. It was an instrument designed to let the Liberals not really respect the NDP as a partner in government or give them credit for policies negotiated in the Accord. And it allowed the NDP not to wear any mistakes of the government. Things could have gone either way. In the short term they went the Liberal's way as they won a majority. But later the Liberals blew it and the following election produced an NDP majority. Ontario went into a very unstable period with three governments in three elections -- four if you count the Accord as different from the Liberals. Let's remember though, the Liberals were twice the size of the NDP and that is what made the idea of an Accord possible. I still think Ontario would have been better served by a coalition.

Now looking to the fall: there is a possibiity that the NDP could fall short of a majority and be double the Liberals. Let's say: NDP 140 and Liberals 70. This would be similar to the Ontario 1985 Accord. An Accord may be contemplated. As I said I prefer coalition in a case like this.

The other option could be where the Cons get something like 140, minor parties get a few seats and one of either the NDP or Liberals gets 100-110 seats and the other gets 80-90.

It is inappropriate to consider anything less than a coalition whent he parties are that close for the following reasons:

1) unthinkable to let the Cons govern if the Liberals and NDP had this many more seats in a clear mandate to remove them.

2) a party with only about 100 seats is too small a madate to be either legitimate or stable. A third party denying that legitimacy is damaging the government, the economy and the country and disrespecting voters. Voters may elect parties but they elect members and they expect them to organize themselves in to a reasonable mandate to govern

3) The representation of the government would be thin making it harder for citizens to influence it and likely it would leave regions with almost no representation

4) the smaller parties MPs and their consituents would be denied an active role in governance. We would be governed with the least political representation in our history.

If the 2nd and 3rd parties are close they have a moral imperative to organize a govenrment if their supporters are as opposed to the first party as we see at the moment. Having the third party set up the second party to fail without investment, participation and without a strong mandate is disgusting. It would be a government facing an opposition bigger than any government has ever seen here and almost unprecedented in the world. In this, by ruling out a coalition even if the parties are close to eqaul, Trudeau is being an anti-statesman.

Trudeau's father was a smarter political operator -- I suspect he would have understood the need for discipline and said we will work with the parliament we get, we will respect the voters, and we will leave all options on the table and not deal in hypothetical.

This would have allowed the NDP to do the same. By ruling out a coalition with the NDP (and not the Conservatives) Trudeau has entered a debate he could have avoided and he has limited his political options. The NDP, by raising the possibility of coalition was merely resetting the options so that nobody could deny a mandate for one if the parties ended up close to equal.

If neither of the parties had ever spoken about coalition, they could have refused to now but having once ruled it out -- it hased to be ruled back in before the topic is ignored. Trudeau has painted himself into a corner where he will not be able to act in his, his party's, and the country's best interest if his party and the NDP end up close in seats.

 

NorthReport

All Harper wants is for the NDP to be 1 seat short of a majority and he will continue as PM. 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

All Harper wants is for the NDP to be 1 seat short of a majority and he will continue as PM. 

So now you have the BQ, every single Liberal MP and Elizabeth May siding with Harper to keep him in power when he has fewer seats than the NDP.

LOL

Harper is completely done if he does not have a plurality.

He is very likely done if the NDP and Liberals together have a majority. (Liberal suicide might be fun to watch but it won't happen.)

He is almost certainly done if the NDP is very close to him in seats and it only take a few Liberals to be more than him.

 

Now if the Liberal leader refuses a coalition arrangement:

 -- the NDP could continue anyway by either asking a few Liberals to defy their leader and sit with the government as Liberals in government

 -- the NDP could try to govern anyway case by case -- the government would be unstable so the party would have to be very careful -- Mulcair would be well advised to do very popular things first and then ask for a majority mandate at the expense of the Liberals a year later saying that he offered Trudeau to form a stable government and he refused now he needs a majority.

Either scenario one might play out:

It is possible that the NDP in 2016 could have a working majority with the Green party since they are in favour of coalitions. the Green party might be able to bring 20 seats to Mulcair and bring him over the top. This would be the first non FPTP election -- Greens would have a reasonable representation. The Liberals would be screwed. There would likely be no contemplation for the foresable future that there ever would be a majority and coalitions would be normal. Trudeau would ned to be replaced with a leader who understands the parliamentary process and does not foreclose any options before the votes are counted.

Or if the NDP blew it and lost popularity another government would be installed in 2016

The NDP will likely have an unstable shot at governance due to Trudeau's stupidity. This might work out for Trudeau and the NDP might be defeated (but it will still be strong) or it might fail and the result would be the destruction of the Liberal party. The gamble here is a loss of one shot at government for the NDP against the permanent destruction of the Liberal party. Trudeau is playing with fire and faces more risk than the NDP.

The NDP has no options here: it must campaign for the strongest mandate possible but it must also accept and use to the fulllest any opportunity. If the NDP declined to govern becuase the government would be too unstable the NDP would be punished as the Liberal would be if they sided with Harper and prevented the NDP from governing.

The reality for the Liberals is if they come in third again -- there is no way that they will be in a position to go back to the polls anytime soon. The idea of the Liberals propping up an NDP government for 2-3 years is nowhere near as bad as what would happen if they propped up a Conservative government for that length of time -- when that Conservative government lacks even a plurality. the scenario you describe would ahve the Liberals campaigning in the following election barely hoping for party status -- assuming they don't just pack up and forget it. No way will they do that. 

Absolute minimum conditions for the Liberals to consider supporting the Conservaties are:

-- a Conservative plurality.

-- most likely a new Conservative leader.

-- Conservatives wanting to govern from such a weak position -- I suspect they would rather go to opposition than govern with a weak minority in what will be a very difficult economic time. I also suspect the Conservatives with dirty secrets will want to get out of dodge.

If the NDP get a plurality -- there will be so much blood-letting in the Lioberal and Conservastive camps that neither will want to govern for a least a couple years. These will be dangerous for the NDP.

With a plurality -- there are some possibilities for Harper depending on the exact makeup of the House. 

The only stable Harper minority scenario is a repeat of history: The Conservatives and the BQ together with a majority. While the BQ hate the Conservatives, the other parties won't dare band with them to bring down Harper. So the true minimum for Harper is that the BQ get more seats than the difference between his number and a majority -- or that the NDP, Liberals and Greens togther have no majority.

If Harper has a plurality and the NDP-Liberal-Greens have majority when the Conservatives do something really bad and the Liberals have to vote to bring them down -- the Liberals will be destroyed for having kept them in power so long. Trudeau has no choice but to prop up Mulcair if between them they have a majority as the price will be too high to support Harper.

socialdemocrati...

The idea that the NDP could be 1 seat short of a majority and Harper would still try to govern is bullshit. Even if you think Harper is that stupid -- and I know he's done some authoritarian stuff, but this would take it to absurd heights -- there are more than a few Liberal MPs who would break with their party to give the NDP a confidence vote. 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The idea that the NDP could be 1 seat short of a majority and Harper would still try to govern is bullshit. Even if you think Harper is that stupid -- and I know he's done some authoritarian stuff, but this would take it to absurd heights -- there are more than a few Liberal MPs who would break with their party to give the NDP a confidence vote. 

Very much agreed.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The Liberals WILL prop up an NDP minority.There is no doubt about it.

I know that in your mind the Liberals are complete moroins but the reality is that they're not that stupid.

They';re not going to commit suicide.

As mentioned above,there are more than a few Liberals who want Harper gone as much as a lot of the electorate.

If Harper doesn't win a majority,he's GONE. THank Christ.

NorthReport

When push comes to shove the Liberals will back Harper. We have seen it time after time after time. What more evidence do you need? 

Anyway hopefully Mulcair will get a majority and we can put these silly conversations to bed.

NorthReport

You are incorrect.

Just a biased opinion as opposed to my facts.

alan smithee wrote:

The Liberals WILL prop up an NDP minority.There is no doubt about it.

I know that in your mind the Liberals are complete moroins but the reality is that they're not that stupid.

They';re not going to commit suicide.

As mentioned above,there are more than a few Liberals who want Harper gone as much as a lot of the electorate.

If Harper doesn't win a majority,he's GONE. THank Christ.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

You like to start threads.

Start a thread with your 'facts' and hypothesis and see how many people agree with you.

You'll be quite lonely.

NorthReport
alan smithee alan smithee's picture

That was 2008.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

Your hatred of the Liberals has you completely deluded. No offense.

NorthReport

alan you have an opinion but you have just confirmed you have no facts.

I wish for what you wish for but it is not going to happen.

 

 

alan smithee wrote:

That was 2008.

I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you.

Your hatred of the Liberals has you completely deluded. No offense.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

You may have got me on 'facts'

But popular opinion is another story.

I promise you (and you can trust me because I'm as honest a person as you'll ever meet) that I will literally eat my hat if an NDP minority is not propped up by the Liberals.

We'll see.

NorthReport

Hopefully Mulcair gets a majority. 

socialdemocrati...

The math in 2008 was completely different. It was math where the NDP was in third place, and the Bloc would have had to be involved.

It's conceivable that maybe if the NDP were nearly tied with the Conservatives for a plurality, you might see some Liberal MPs offer to prop up a Conservative government to stop the NDP. But if that were to happen, you'd see many Liberal MPs in open revolt. Some of whom would back the NDP. Possibly even enough to give the NDP the government.

If the NDP is one seat shy of a majority, that means only one MP from another party needs to support them. If you don't think that will happen, you live in a hyperpartisan world where every person with a different lawn sign is your enemy. You don't live in the real world.

jjuares

alan smithee wrote:

You may have got me on 'facts'

But popular opinion is another story.

I promise you (and you can trust me because I'm as honest a person as you'll ever meet) that I will literally eat my hat if an NDP minority is not propped up by the Liberals.

We'll see.


I agree. Trudeauhas said no to a coalition so it will not involve Liberal cabinet members but they will have to prop up a NDP gov. In the short term. If Harper and the NDP are close to being equal there is no way Trudeau can support Harper. It would call into question the very existence of the LPC.

NorthReport

In the following scenario unfortunately Trudeau would support Harper, according to Liberal behaviour. 

Cons - 160 seats

NDP - 145 seats

Libs - 29 seats

BQ - 3 seats

Grns - 1 seats

Total 338 seats

 

NorthReport

-

 

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sigh.

No need to say I disagree,I've said it enough.

On verra.

NorthReport

Not one person has provided evidence in Trudeau's or Liberals' behaviour that even remotely suggests they would support an NDP government.

Please wake us up when you discover something.

Not talking here about what people want to have happen, just what will happen according to Liberal behaviour.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

SMH.

You are the only person...sorry,that probably isn';t true...you are of a MINORITY that believes this bullshit.

Why would the Liberals kill themselves a la PC's 1993?

They want to someday become the government again. If Canadians vote an NDP government,even a minority,the message will be clear --- we want change and we reject the Harpercons.

What do the Liberals have to gain to quash an NDP gov't and prop up Harper? It makes no sense both politically and logically.

It's not going to happen and I think a majority of people here,even partisan dippers,would agree with me.

socialdemocrati...

Stephane Dion alone is evidence that there are a few Liberals who believe in a coalition, not to mention all the Liberals who were willing to support him. The Liberal party is not a monolith. 

And that's a *coalition*. If there are a few who would support that, there are even more who would support an accord, or at minimum, one confidence vote to get Stephen Harper out of the PM office.

Not to mention, huge numbers of Liberal supporters vote for the Liberal party because they believe (for some odd reason) they'd have a better shot at ousting Harper than Mulcair. There would be huge pressure on the Liberal party to do something about Harper, and at least a few MPs would have to cave, and at least do the bare minimum of a confidence vote.

Sean in Ottawa

Alan -- I disagree with North Report but I do not agree with the contention that Harper only needs a majority. The history shows something else about the politics of the country.

Harper needs two things:

A plurality 

AND

The BQ having more seats than the difference between the CPC and a majority -- or in other words a majority between the CPC and the BQ.

The reality is that a vote for the BQ is a vote for Harper. The Liberals will not be part of an arrangement that brings down a CPC plurality if they have to use the support of the BQ. And this is what North Report's link shows.

However, where I disagree with North Report is that without the BQ being there as an excuse, the pressure on the NDP and Liberals to work together will be overwhelming and it will exist right among the MPs -- as much as they hate each other.

What Trudeau is saying is he will not do a deal with the NDP in order to allow a stable government. He would rather go case by case so he can bring the government down at a time of his choosing. It is a gamble-- one that could work out for Trudeau but also one that could backfire into an NDP majority. Given how this would destabalize the government by being unwilling to work in it, I have no respect for this position by Trudeau. Now if the Liberals and NDP are close this is even worse becuase it would be a thinner government and more Liberal MPs (and their ridings) who ought to be in government given the House dynamics but aren't. I think Trudeau has more to lose than to gain in that arrangement.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Alan -- I disagree with North Report but I do not agree with the contention that Harper only needs a majority. The history shows something else about the politics of the country.

Harper needs two things:

A plurality 

AND

The BQ having more seats than the difference between the CPC and a majority -- or in other words a majority between the CPC and the BQ.

The reality is that a vote for the BQ is a vote for Harper. The Liberals will not be part of an arrangement that brings down a CPC plurality if they have to use the support of the BQ. And this is what North Report's link shows.

However, where I disagree with North Report is that without the BQ being there as an excuse, the pressure on the NDP and Liberals to work together will be overwhelming and it will exist right among the MPs -- as much as they hate each other.

What Trudeau is saying is he will not do a deal with the NDP in order to allow a stable government. He would rather go case by case so he can bring the government down at a time of his choosing. It is a gamble-- one that could work out for Trudeau but also one that could backfire into an NDP majority. Given how this would destabalize the government by being unwilling to work in it, I have no respect for this position by Trudeau. Now if the Liberals and NDP are close this is even worse becuase it would be a thinner government and more Liberal MPs (and their ridings) who ought to be in government given the House dynamics but aren't. I think Trudeau has more to lose than to gain in that arrangement.

Thanks,Sean. I'll retract my contention that Harper will be done without a majority.

But it's good news that Bloc support is waning,push comes to shove Quebecers will recognize the NDP is much more useful than the BQ.

I'm not Nostradamus so I won't make any predictions. But I do hope Canadians are smart enough to stop Harper...It's in their hands.

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

In the following scenario unfortunately Trudeau would support Harper, according to Liberal behaviour. 

Cons - 160 seats

NDP - 145 seats

Libs - 29 seats

BQ - 3 seats

Grns - 1 seats

Total 338 seats

 

I agree.  The Liberals would view it as death to support and validate the NDP.  It would forever blow their "natural governing party" and their strategic vote rhetoric.  They would do as they've done before and allow the Cons to govern.  Why disbelieve Trudeau's pronouncements against a coalition?  I believe he is serious.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

All Harper wants is for the NDP to be 1 seat short of a majority and he will continue as PM.

NorthReport wrote:

Not one person has provided evidence in Trudeau's or Liberals' behaviour that even remotely suggests they would support an NDP government.

Please wake us up when you discover something.

Not talking here about what people want to have happen, just what will happen according to Liberal behaviour.

Except for the King-Byng Affair in 1925, the experience in Canadian politics, federally and provincially, has been that the party that wins a clear plurality of the votes forms the government.

There has never been a single time in Canadian history, provincially or federally, that the Liberals have allowed a 2nd place conservative party to form government.

sherpa-finn

Surely the more interesting conversation is trying to define / anticipate the shared elements (and prospective deal breakers) of an accord between the NDP and Liberals.

Reform of the electoral system... repeal (?) of c-51.... repeal of income splitting.... national child-care program ...???

Pages