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

295 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2005 so Liberals forced an election.

They definitely worked together in the spring of 2005 to get concessions in the budget for the NDP. Remember that?

I've never been clear on the details of what went wrong in November. Layton said something about how Martin wouldn't block increased health care privatization - but what, exactly? Do you know?

Quote:
Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2008-2009 and defeat Harper.

That's a strange generalization. They had a signed coalition deal in December 2008, and they sure as heck looked as if they presented it to the G-G looking to form a government. It was Harper, and the turncoat Michaelle Jean, who nixed that one. Only then did the Liberals revert to their more traditional colours and enable Harper to rule unchallenged for more than two years.

Quote:
Liberals are to blame for Harper being in power since February 6, 2006, more than 9 long years.

That's cool. But if push comes to shove, would you rather blame them for another 4 years of Harper after October, or push them kicking and screaming into some arrangement with the NDP (and others) that will put Harper in the trash?

I was disappointed in Climenhaga's rather dogmatic take on things. I can't recall how he reacted to the 2008 coalition. It would be interesting to see if he analyzed the situation similarly at that time.

 

OK I'll do a little history survey of how I saw those events, the reasons why and the context they are setting up now

In November the NDP were posturing a bit wanting to negotiate. Martin was annoyed that they had nothing to negotiate with as they did not have the numbers. What Layton was doing was politics -- understandable but those who were aware politically could see it clearly. First Layton made a show of trying to negotiate -- this was designed to get NDP positions in the news. It was a smart play really since it worked. By November the NDP was irrelevant as they had lost the balance of power (2 Liberal defections over the the sponsorship scandal had already sealed the deal for Martin). Everyone knew that Martin was going down it was just a question of when and how as the independents, the BQ and the CPC were going to vote him down. In this situation the Liberals were toxic. So Layton who had a few months earlier been making nice with the Liberals gave them one last chance to postpone the vote (unclear how this could have worked had Martin actually agreed). Martin, wanted to get the vote over with -- it was clear there would be an election and he saw no point in putting it off. The NDP then realized that they were staring down the barrel of an election and all the parties were going to paint the NDP as being Liberal enablers if they did not side with the others. So Layton made a bit of theatre in his non confidence motion -- the purpose was to really drive the point home that the NDP was not supporting Liberal corruption.

We all know what happened after that , Martin blew the election in a shocking way. Liberals since then have employed selective memories, first forgetting that the NDP did not just support the progressive policies of early 2005 -- they had argued for and demanded them, and second the Liberals forget that the NDP had no bearing on the non confidence vote and can only be accused of positioning themselves for an inevitable election. To this day Liberals online regularly lie about the history to blame the NDP for bringing down Kelowna and childcare. The irony is that the Liberals never did blame the parties that held the majority. We know the CPC hates Aboriginal people and childcare equally but the BQ who actually had the balance of power has been let off the hook. The BQ were in a position to allow these to pass.

There is a reason for this -- a couple good ones. First the BQ were incensed at the sponsorship scandal because politically it was aimed at them, very crooked and it hurt Quebec's reputation. All of this would have been central to a BQ response had the Liberals pointed out that the BQ had been in favour of both childcare and Kelowna. The BQ simply decided that the voters must have an option to pronounce on the Liberal sleaze. To this day the Liberals will not go after the BQ because the BQ would respond more harshly than the NDP on this point. And second, even if the BQ would let them away with it -- by making the discussion a Quebec one, the Liberals would be highlighting the real reason for their failure which was the sponsorship scandal in Quebec.

The second group the Liberals refuse to blame (because they want this sorry tale forgotten) are their own MPs who left the party over the sponsorship scandal and declared their intention to vote their own party out of office at the first opportunity. (A third Liberal MP had also become an independent but she opted to support Martin to the end and she did.)

So the real story is that there were four opponents of the Liberals that fall:

1) their break away MPs

2) the BQ

3) the NDP

and 4) the CPC

The CPC were a given. the other three were all supporters of the policies that Martin had been pushed into doing. The first two to declare were the BQ and the independents both of whom had the balance of power. Layton was trying to negotiate an infrastructure deal for municipalities at the last moment and something regarding health care (I don't remember what exactly right now). It was the Liberals who pointed out to Layton that he was asking too much and had no leverage -- it almost seemed as if the NDP before that had not done the math to realize there was no negotiation possible (I figure they had and wanted the show of the negotiation to highlight their policies). Layton woke up to what was said to him -- tried one last attempt to allow for a delay and then distanced himself from the Liberals.

The NDP was guilty of some theatre but certainly not at all responsible for the fate of the Martin government. And let's not pretend that ALL parties do not engage in theatre. The theatre was an attempt to make him and his party appear more relevant to the vote even though the small caucus had lost the balance of power. The NDP is the party always with the least money and Layton was a headline hound as he knew he had to be. I accept this with some understanding even though some of this was a little cringe-worthy.

Another point few talk about is of course the original story behind the sponsorship scandal. This goes back to a period where the Liberals developed a real culture of cheating. This was done so in the context of their party being near bankrupt. Back in 1991 the party was so desperate it could not pay employee taxi chits as I heard (I was caught up in this period and close enough to see some of this even though I was not a Liberal).  Chretien knew the party was desperate and he understood this was due to problems with party financing rules. I suspect he also knew about dirty  deals although there is no proof of specific knowledge. To his credit Chretien's legacy was the per vote subsidy. I think this was intended to make sure that no party is so desperate that it will feel it has no choice but to play dirty on a field that is so clearly tilted against them. We all know what happened to that and just how tilted the field is today. Ironically, it is not the disadvantaged parties who are cheating but the most advantaged Conservatives keen to double down on every advantage. Still there is little doubt that in the current situation the opposition parties are looking to play as close as they can to the edge of the rules understanding that this is the only way they can stay in the competition.

Unfortunately, the animus between the Liberals and the NDP has made it impossible for them to agree on a common message about the dirty politics the Conservatives have been playing and the severe damage the country is taking when it comes to democratic process. I would have liked the Liberals to bash each other on policies but run joint ads about the unprecedented attacks on Canada's democracy that the CPC have waged. We will know in a few weeks if that decision not to work together in even a limited way could open the door to Harper winning. While a new CPC government may be less than likely, any risk is worrisome because another few years of the CPC controlling the field and Canada could become effectively a one-party state. The degree of advantage they have is so great already that their party has a possible chance of winning even after scandals that would defeat any other government. I think it is safe to say that the CPC have proven they can do every bit as bad as the sponsorship scandal and win anyway. That is a very scary reality in the context of recent history. The Conservatives no longer even pretend to be interested in a fair election. Now we are seeing naked attempt to defeat the other parties by outspending them.We have come to ralize that somewhere close to one in three voters are willing to set aside all ethics in order to further the politics of their greed.

Other voters are rightfully annoyed that the NDP and Liberals, as different as they may be, cannot sopt bashing each other long enough to point this out in a common message.

Sean in Ottawa

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Yeah. The Unity Act vs Clarity Act thing is moot.  The only people who care are the Bloc, and whichever Liberals are cynical enough to wish for the Bloc to take down the NDP. There isn't going to be a referendum. Which is at least partially attributed to the NDP offering a federalist option that hopes to keep Canadian unity through good governance rather than legal hurdles.

Indeed the Clarity Act debate is part of the illness in Canadian politics. The NDP insists that courts have an opportunity to decide that the question be clear and a referendum be clean. The vote after that must be won by the side with the most votes. This is an internationally sound position to take, as we just saw in the UK. But in Canada, we no longer believe in real democratic votes or in fair process. We have gotten to the point where the dirty politics of the CPC is seen as a means to an end and that we would set the bar for a referendum at a level where we get to change the rules and decide what is a win after the vote. Canadians would be deeply offended if any other country in the world did this.

The NDP is not convinced (and neither am I) that the strategy of disrespect for a democratic majority result would work anyway. The idea is that people angry at the idea that the one with the most votes could lose, could in fact, turn a narrow win into a substantial loss. As we have seen in Greece -- when a population feels disrespected, they can do some very dramatic things. Mulcair is confident that should it come down to it -- it the question is clear and the process fair -- Canadian unity can win a majority in a referendum.  Conservatives and Liberals lack confidence and seek to load the dice seemingly unaware that this may only make a defeat for unity more likely, and yes, more convincing. It would also weaken the federal table if a negotiation ever happened.

Let's be clear about one other thing that Liberals in particular want to forget about the NDP position. That vote that was so close in 1995 -- would not have passed the NDP test as the question was unclear. There is no indication of any greater threat to Canada through respecting a majority as well as requiring a clear question and fair process than the threat of by trying to load the dice with a super majority,

As well, the requirement would be a negotiation. There is nothing about the NDP proposal that says that an NDP government at the table would present a easy deal.

My preference is something no party has asked for. I agree with the NDP position largely but I think that the terms of any negotiaton should then be public and then reconfirmed in a second vote before any final arrangment be implemented. This is a position that would be better than the current NDP position and certainly better than the loaded die approach the other parties are taking. It also would provide for a second thought.

NorthReport

The only way Mulcair will become Prime Minister is for the NDP to earn a majority government

There is no other way

socialdemocrati...

You forgot a minority government.

Pondering

A more accurate accounting from shortly after the events published by The Walrus.

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

Following negotiations with the Liberals that seemed designed to fail, Layton broke with the Martin government in a letter to health minister Ujjal Dosanjh on November 7, 2005. He wrote that he was halting talks with the Liberals vis-à-vis stopping “the growing privatization of public health care in Canada” because “in our view, on this key test of whether the Government has a real desire to make the present Parliament work, we must regretfully conclude that there seems to be none.” Three weeks later, the ndp joined with the other two opposition parties to defeat the minority Liberal government in a vote of non-confidence. Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community. The federal election “badly tested the relationship” between social movements and the ndp, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper’s victory. “ndp strategists precipitated the election, sensing a moment of opportunity to win more seats. But their decision was made over the explicit objection of many progressive movements.

Also, a 50%+1 threshold would actually end up less than 50% because not everyone votes. If it were 50%+1 of eligible voters as opposed to voters I would accept that threshold.

NorthReport

I wish it were not so, but the only way the NDP will govern is for the NDP to earn a majority government.  

And by-the-way I didn't forget minority government, so were you making an ignorant comment? 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

The evidence is that the Liberal party has lended a confidence vote to countless minority governments over the years. 

The question is whether the Liberal party would give a vote of confidence to a minority even if it were NDP, or if they'd give a vote of confidence to the Conservatives even if they didn't win the election. Let alone whether the entire party would even be unified in their decision one way or the other.

We can guess at the answer, but it's pretty ignorant to pretend that you know for sure.

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

You forgot a minority government.

NorthReport

Don't click on this Walrus link as my anti-virus detector warned me off it.

Pondering wrote:

A more accurate accounting from shortly after the events published by The Walrus.

http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/

Following negotiations with the Liberals that seemed designed to fail, Layton broke with the Martin government in a letter to health minister Ujjal Dosanjh on November 7, 2005. He wrote that he was halting talks with the Liberals vis-à-vis stopping “the growing privatization of public health care in Canada” because “in our view, on this key test of whether the Government has a real desire to make the present Parliament work, we must regretfully conclude that there seems to be none.” Three weeks later, the ndp joined with the other two opposition parties to defeat the minority Liberal government in a vote of non-confidence. Inside the ndp, the move was divisive. By voting day, it had created a veritable chasm within the broader left community. The federal election “badly tested the relationship” between social movements and the ndp, wrote Canadian Auto Workers economist Jim Stanford in the Globe and Mail a few days after Harper’s victory. “ndp strategists precipitated the election, sensing a moment of opportunity to win more seats. But their decision was made over the explicit objection of many progressive movements.

Also, a 50%+1 threshold would actually end up less than 50% because not everyone votes. If it were 50%+1 of eligible voters as opposed to voters I would accept that threshold.

NorthReport

Unionist,

Sean's recollection is good.

Of course they will lie about it, but the Martin Liberals, who are still there by the way, had their eyes on privatizing health care.

Liberal Senator Miichael Kirby if I recollect, appeared to be leading the pack. 

The Liberals have much more in common with the Cons than the NDP, and that is why the only way Mulcair will become prome minister is if the NDP earns a majority government.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Unionist wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2005 so Liberals forced an election.

They definitely worked together in the spring of 2005 to get concessions in the budget for the NDP. Remember that?

I've never been clear on the details of what went wrong in November. Layton said something about how Martin wouldn't block increased health care privatization - but what, exactly? Do you know?

Quote:
Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2008-2009 and defeat Harper.

That's a strange generalization. They had a signed coalition deal in December 2008, and they sure as heck looked as if they presented it to the G-G looking to form a government. It was Harper, and the turncoat Michaelle Jean, who nixed that one. Only then did the Liberals revert to their more traditional colours and enable Harper to rule unchallenged for more than two years.

Quote:
Liberals are to blame for Harper being in power since February 6, 2006, more than 9 long years.

That's cool. But if push comes to shove, would you rather blame them for another 4 years of Harper after October, or push them kicking and screaming into some arrangement with the NDP (and others) that will put Harper in the trash?

I was disappointed in Climenhaga's rather dogmatic take on things. I can't recall how he reacted to the 2008 coalition. It would be interesting to see if he analyzed the situation similarly at that time.

 

OK I'll do a little history survey of how I saw those events, the reasons why and the context they are setting up now

In November the NDP were posturing a bit wanting to negotiate. Martin was annoyed that they had nothing to negotiate with as they did not have the numbers. What Layton was doing was politics -- understandable but those who were aware politically could see it clearly. First Layton made a show of trying to negotiate -- this was designed to get NDP positions in the news. It was a smart play really since it worked. By November the NDP was irrelevant as they had lost the balance of power (2 Liberal defections over the the sponsorship scandal had already sealed the deal for Martin). Everyone knew that Martin was going down it was just a question of when and how as the independents, the BQ and the CPC were going to vote him down. In this situation the Liberals were toxic. So Layton who had a few months earlier been making nice with the Liberals gave them one last chance to postpone the vote (unclear how this could have worked had Martin actually agreed). Martin, wanted to get the vote over with -- it was clear there would be an election and he saw no point in putting it off. The NDP then realized that they were staring down the barrel of an election and all the parties were going to paint the NDP as being Liberal enablers if they did not side with the others. So Layton made a bit of theatre in his non confidence motion -- the purpose was to really drive the point home that the NDP was not supporting Liberal corruption.

We all know what happened after that , Martin blew the election in a shocking way. Liberals since then have employed selective memories, first forgetting that the NDP did not just support the progressive policies of early 2005 -- they had argued for and demanded them, and second the Liberals forget that the NDP had no bearing on the non confidence vote and can only be accused of positioning themselves for an inevitable election. To this day Liberals online regularly lie about the history to blame the NDP for bringing down Kelowna and childcare. The irony is that the Liberals never did blame the parties that held the majority. We know the CPC hates Aboriginal people and childcare equally but the BQ who actually had the balance of power has been let off the hook. The BQ were in a position to allow these to pass.

There is a reason for this -- a couple good ones. First the BQ were incensed at the sponsorship scandal because politically it was aimed at them, very crooked and it hurt Quebec's reputation. All of this would have been central to a BQ response had the Liberals pointed out that the BQ had been in favour of both childcare and Kelowna. The BQ simply decided that the voters must have an option to pronounce on the Liberal sleaze. To this day the Liberals will not go after the BQ because the BQ would respond more harshly than the NDP on this point. And second, even if the BQ would let them away with it -- by making the discussion a Quebec one, the Liberals would be highlighting the real reason for their failure which was the sponsorship scandal in Quebec.

The second group the Liberals refuse to blame (because they want this sorry tale forgotten) are their own MPs who left the party over the sponsorship scandal and declared their intention to vote their own party out of office at the first opportunity. (A third Liberal MP had also become an independent but she opted to support Martin to the end and she did.)

So the real story is that there were four opponents of the Liberals that fall:

1) their break away MPs

2) the BQ

3) the NDP

and 4) the CPC

The CPC were a given. the other three were all supporters of the policies that Martin had been pushed into doing. The first two to declare were the BQ and the independents both of whom had the balance of power. Layton was trying to negotiate an infrastructure deal for municipalities at the last moment and something regarding health care (I don't remember what exactly right now). It was the Liberals who pointed out to Layton that he was asking too much and had no leverage -- it almost seemed as if the NDP before that had not done the math to realize there was no negotiation possible (I figure they had and wanted the show of the negotiation to highlight their policies). Layton woke up to what was said to him -- tried one last attempt to allow for a delay and then distanced himself from the Liberals.

The NDP was guilty of some theatre but certainly not at all responsible for the fate of the Martin government. And let's not pretend that ALL parties do not engage in theatre. The theatre was an attempt to make him and his party appear more relevant to the vote even though the small caucus had lost the balance of power. The NDP is the party always with the least money and Layton was a headline hound as he knew he had to be. I accept this with some understanding even though some of this was a little cringe-worthy.

Another point few talk about is of course the original story behind the sponsorship scandal. This goes back to a period where the Liberals developed a real culture of cheating. This was done so in the context of their party being near bankrupt. Back in 1991 the party was so desperate it could not pay employee taxi chits as I heard (I was caught up in this period and close enough to see some of this even though I was not a Liberal).  Chretien knew the party was desperate and he understood this was due to problems with party financing rules. I suspect he also knew about dirty  deals although there is no proof of specific knowledge. To his credit Chretien's legacy was the per vote subsidy. I think this was intended to make sure that no party is so desperate that it will feel it has no choice but to play dirty on a field that is so clearly tilted against them. We all know what happened to that and just how tilted the field is today. Ironically, it is not the disadvantaged parties who are cheating but the most advantaged Conservatives keen to double down on every advantage. Still there is little doubt that in the current situation the opposition parties are looking to play as close as they can to the edge of the rules understanding that this is the only way they can stay in the competition.

Unfortunately, the animus between the Liberals and the NDP has made it impossible for them to agree on a common message about the dirty politics the Conservatives have been playing and the severe damage the country is taking when it comes to democratic process. I would have liked the Liberals to bash each other on policies but run joint ads about the unprecedented attacks on Canada's democracy that the CPC have waged. We will know in a few weeks if that decision not to work together in even a limited way could open the door to Harper winning. While a new CPC government may be less than likely, any risk is worrisome because another few years of the CPC controlling the field and Canada could become effectively a one-party state. The degree of advantage they have is so great already that their party has a possible chance of winning even after scandals that would defeat any other government. I think it is safe to say that the CPC have proven they can do every bit as bad as the sponsorship scandal and win anyway. That is a very scary reality in the context of recent history. The Conservatives no longer even pretend to be interested in a fair election. Now we are seeing naked attempt to defeat the other parties by outspending them.We have come to ralize that somewhere close to one in three voters are willing to set aside all ethics in order to further the politics of their greed.

Other voters are rightfully annoyed that the NDP and Liberals, as different as they may be, cannot sopt bashing each other long enough to point this out in a common message.

NorthReport

Coalition anyone?

Trudeau says he doesn't want to deny Canadians a choice at the ballot box, but his refusal to dance with the New Democrats is more about election politics than principle.

The Liberals have said the NDP would hurt the economy, and they disagree on many issues. It's hard to talk about forming a relationship with the party you are demonizing.

Trudeau, however, might very well change his tune if his party finished second in a Tory-dominated minority Parliament. In that case, the idea of partnering with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair might look a little sweeter.

The third-place party, moreover, doesn't have to actually form a coalition with the second party. It merely has to agree to support it under certain conditions.


http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/5766148-coalition-anyone-/

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

Coalition anyone?

Trudeau says he doesn't want to deny Canadians a choice at the ballot box, but his refusal to dance with the New Democrats is more about election politics than principle.

The Liberals have said the NDP would hurt the economy, and they disagree on many issues. It's hard to talk about forming a relationship with the party you are demonizing.

Trudeau, however, might very well change his tune if his party finished second in a Tory-dominated minority Parliament. In that case, the idea of partnering with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair might look a little sweeter.

The third-place party, moreover, doesn't have to actually form a coalition with the second party. It merely has to agree to support it under certain conditions.


http://www.guelphmercury.com/opinion-story/5766148-coalition-anyone-/

This is not clear to me. The issue is subjective -- this means that a GG might condition a second place party as requiring a coalition. Would be one way to stick it to Trudeau and force him either to work with the Conservatives if they are in first or the very thing he said he would not do.

I agree a plurality would have to get the nod. We might get to see the value of a Conservative GG to Harper...

JKR

NorthReport wrote:
The only way Mulcair will become Prime Minister is for the NDP to earn a majority government

There is no other way

Mulcair will become Prime Minister if the NDP elects the most MP's.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
The only way Mulcair will become Prime Minister is for the NDP to earn a majority government There is no other way

Mulcair will become Prime Minister if the NDP elects the most MP's.

I agree -- the Liberals may not help but I do not see them actively bringing the NDP down. But those numbers will matter. If the BQ and CPC are more than Mulcair he would be in a fragile position. If the Liberals get even a moment higher in the polls the Liberals will try to bring him down as well.

Liberals will fence sit-- they will likely avoid a quick new election -- for that reason alone they are unlikely to support any other than the first party.

However,, as I say there is one fram they could go for: if Harper goes the Liberals could entertain some kind of unity deal with the Conservatives -- based on some response to a national emergency. While this is a long shot it is not impossible depending on the psition of the conservatives. This would only be if the Conservatives wanted to continue (they might prefer the Liebrals in third and the NDP polarizing things). And of course it would need the Conservaitves to agree to the national emergency frame. Without that the Liberals could not make such a move.

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

I wish it were not so, but the only way the NDP will govern is for the NDP to earn a majority government.  

And by-the-way I didn't forget minority government, so were you making an ignorant comment? 

I was trying to help reduce the amount of ignorance. You see, there's this thing called a minority government, where a party wins the most seats but not enough for form a majority. They can still form a government if they win a confidence vote. If they were, say, one seat shy of a majority, they would just need to find one MP from one other party who is willing to give them a vote of confidence. 

mark_alfred

sdm, you think some of the cats would support the mice?  I dunno.  I tend to side with NR on this.  Think of Alberta.  If it was a minority win by the NDP, I'm not sure what would have happened.  Likewise federally.  Best bet is to have the NDP win a majority.  That should always be the goal.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

sdm, you think some of the cats would support the mice?  I dunno.  I tend to side with NR on this.  Think of Alberta.  If it was a minority win by the NDP, I'm not sure what would have happened.  Likewise federally.  Best bet is to have the NDP win a majority.  That should always be the goal.

Of course all parties want to win a majority because it is best. However, as SD pointed out, if the NDP wins a plurality of seats Mulcair will still become PM.

NorthReport

sdm

You are playing the silly game of how many people can dance on the head of a pin.

I respect your point of view but disagree with it completely.

The only way Mulcair is going to become prime minister is if the NDP earns a majority government from the voters.

I know it is hard to fathem because in Canada we have the Conservative media complex and the Liberal media complex, and no NDP media complex to speak of except for a little bit online.

24/7 since Confederation Canadians have been sold this right-wing bill of goods, and now a third right-wing party, the Greens have been added to the mix. 

There is not the slighest indication from any one of those 3 right-wing parties would ever support an NDP government.

And Jon Cooksley said as much in his comments yesterday in the Georgia Straight.

And I believe you owe me an apology for your "ignorant" comment in post 241 

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

I wish it were not so, but the only way the NDP will govern is for the NDP to earn a majority government.  

And by-the-way I didn't forget minority government, so were you making an ignorant comment? 

I was trying to help reduce the amount of ignorance. You see, there's this thing called a minority government, where a party wins the most seats but not enough for form a majority. They can still form a government if they win a confidence vote. If they were, say, one seat shy of a majority, they would just need to find one MP from one other party who is willing to give them a vote of confidence. 

socialdemocrati...

If they were one seat shy, there are some mice in the Green Party and the Bloc. It's almost a mathematical certainty that the Liberals recruited at least one mouse as an MP who honestly believes their top goal is to get Harper out of power, and doesn't realize they're surrounded by cats. They would only need to break with the Liberals for one vote to do it.

Do you honestly think that the NDP would have 168 seats, and the Liberals and Conservatives would find a way to muster the Bloc and the Greens to form an anti-NDP coalition government with Harper as the PM? It's so ridicilous as to sound like a paranoid delusion, no disrespect to people who work in the mental health field.

NorthReport

sdm,

As I have already mentioned you are playing the silly game of how many people can dance on the head of a pin. Come on, you have gone off on a diversion, and you are better that this. 

bekayne

mark_alfred wrote:

sdm, you think some of the cats would support the mice?

What was Mulcair when he was in Charest's cabinet? A mouse? A cat? A hampster?

mark_alfred

Getting back on topic, has anyone heard whether an accord is out of the question?  Seems that Trudeau rejects the coalition idea, but perhaps both Mulcair and Trudeau would be open to an accord, if necessary.  And by necessary, I mean if Harper wins a minority.

socialdemocrati...

It's your diversion, NorthReport. You're the one who claimed that the NDP would not form a government if they were one seat shy of a majority. You do realize that you'd need an ironclad coalition of every Green-Bloc-Liberal-Conservative MP, all unified by their mutual hatred of the NDP. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that you believe in a 4-party coalition to make Harper the PM, just because of their shared hatred of the NDP? 

Sean in Ottawa

NorthReport wrote:

sdm,

As I have already mentioned you are playing the silly game of how many people can dance on the head of a pin. Come on, you have gone off on a diversion, and you are better that this. 

Actually North Report -- you are the one talking in absolutes. I don't think you should react like this to those who are pointing out how silly the absolute is.

 

NorthReport

sdm,

You need to apologize for your own sake, for your commentts in post #241, and we will leave it at that.

Regards,

 

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It's your diversion, NorthReport. You're the one who claimed that the NDP would not form a government if they were one seat shy of a majority. You do realize that you'd need an ironclad coalition of every Green-Bloc-Liberal-Conservative MP, all unified by their mutual hatred of the NDP. Do you realize how ridiculous the four party anti-NDP coalition sounds?

NorthReport

+   

socialdemocrati...

NorthReport wrote:

sdm,

You need to apologize for your own sake, for your commentts in post #241, and we will leave it at that.

Regards,

 

You're not just making outlandish predictions based on a four-party anti-NDP conspiracy.

You're also dismissing the more obvious scenario -- the party one seat shy of a majority government gets a minority government -- as impossible.

In post 241, I said "it's ignorant to pretend that you know for sure".

You could actually just drop the pretention and we will leave it at that.

 

josh.brandon1

I see the logic in the NDP gambit to push for a liberal commitment to cooperation. Without a commitment, the Liberals are likely to support whichever party gets the plurality of seats between the Conservatives and the NDP. Currently, most models point to the Conservatives getting more seats and Harper maintaining power. For Harper to get less than say 130 seats, which is about a threshold for minority government, he'd have to be wiped out in Atlantic Canada, and lose safe-ish seats in suburban West like Delta, White Rock in BC or Charleswood in Manitoba. This is against odds.

The only other route to power for the NDP is if the Liberal vote collapses and a lot of Liberal seats especially in Ontario switch to the NDP, pushing them into a minority government situation. Perhaps enough anti-Harper voters will be nervous about supporting the Liberals if they see Trudeau may continue to prop him up post-Oct 19.

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It's your diversion, NorthReport. You're the one who claimed that the NDP would not form a government if they were one seat shy of a majority. You do realize that you'd need an ironclad coalition of every Green-Bloc-Liberal-Conservative MP, all unified by their mutual hatred of the NDP. Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds that you believe in a 4-party coalition to make Harper the PM, just because of their shared hatred of the NDP? 

Who would have thunk it! A ridiculous post on Babble!!

JKR

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

sdm,

You need to apologize for your own sake, for your commentts in post #241, and we will leave it at that.

Regards,

 

You're not just making outlandish predictions based on a four-party anti-NDP conspiracy.

You're also dismissing the more obvious scenario -- the party one seat shy of a majority government gets a minority government -- as impossible.

In post 241, I said "it's ignorant to pretend that you know for sure".

You could actually just drop the pretention and we will leave it at that.

 

Who would have thunk it! A pretentious post on Babble!!

Pondering

josh.brandon1 wrote:

I see the logic in the NDP gambit to push for a liberal commitment to cooperation. Without a commitment, the Liberals are likely to support whichever party gets the plurality of seats between the Conservatives and the NDP. Currently, most models point to the Conservatives getting more seats and Harper maintaining power.

It may be logical as a political maneuver but it was too hostile to be a genuine request for cooperation.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

 

Do you honestly think that the NDP would have 168 seats, and the Liberals and Conservatives would find a way to muster the Bloc and the Greens to form an anti-NDP coalition government with Harper as the PM? It's so ridicilous as to sound like a paranoid delusion, no disrespect to people who work in the mental health field.

+1

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
The only way Mulcair will become Prime Minister is for the NDP to earn a majority government There is no other way

Mulcair will become Prime Minister if the NDP elects the most MP's.

I agree -- the Liberals may not help but I do not see them actively bringing the NDP down. But those numbers will matter. If the BQ and CPC are more than Mulcair he would be in a fragile position. If the Liberals get even a moment higher in the polls the Liberals will try to bring him down as well.

Liberals will fence sit-- they will likely avoid a quick new election -- for that reason alone they are unlikely to support any other than the first party.

However,, as I say there is one fram they could go for: if Harper goes the Liberals could entertain some kind of unity deal with the Conservatives -- based on some response to a national emergency. While this is a long shot it is not impossible depending on the psition of the conservatives. This would only be if the Conservatives wanted to continue (they might prefer the Liebrals in third and the NDP polarizing things). And of course it would need the Conservaitves to agree to the national emergency frame. Without that the Liberals could not make such a move.

 

Although very unlikely, a national emergency could lead to a coalition government like Borden's 1917 Union Government that occurred toward the end of the Second World War. The Conservatives, NDP, and Liberals could all be a part of such a coalition government to establish unity and a common front as all three majour parties are on the same page on many foreign affairs issues like the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine and Russia.

The only rationale for this would be to keep the NDP out so this would be Lib-Con. I was just explaining the one scenario where the Liberals could get away with supporting the CPC to keep the NDP out -- this would be it.

Northern PoV

While you folks measure the windows at 24 Sussex for Orange curtains or invent unlikely martyrdom scenarios........

"“Essentially, the ridings that we’re close in and matter for us are against Liberals,” another Conservative source said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/30/tories-election-trudeau-ads_n_79...

All progressive Canadians need to carefully consider the impact of their vote in their local riding... and yes vote strategically.

(It looks like I will vote Orange this time but I will wait for Oct 19 to make that call.)

 

Pondering

Northern PoV wrote:

While you folks measure the windows at 24 Sussex for Orange curtains or invent unlikely martyrdom scenarios........

"“Essentially, the ridings that we’re close in and matter for us are against Liberals,” another Conservative source said."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/30/tories-election-trudeau-ads_n_79...

All progressive Canadians need to carefully consider the impact of their vote in their local riding... and yes vote strategically.

(It looks like I will vote Orange this time but I will wait for Oct 19 to make that call.)

I agree. Although I am a strong Trudeau supporter and disagree strongly with some NDP positions I will probably end up voting Orange strategically in my riding.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
NorthReport wrote:
The only way Mulcair will become Prime Minister is for the NDP to earn a majority government There is no other way

Mulcair will become Prime Minister if the NDP elects the most MP's.

I agree -- the Liberals may not help but I do not see them actively bringing the NDP down. But those numbers will matter. If the BQ and CPC are more than Mulcair he would be in a fragile position. If the Liberals get even a moment higher in the polls the Liberals will try to bring him down as well.

Liberals will fence sit-- they will likely avoid a quick new election -- for that reason alone they are unlikely to support any other than the first party.

However,, as I say there is one fram they could go for: if Harper goes the Liberals could entertain some kind of unity deal with the Conservatives -- based on some response to a national emergency. While this is a long shot it is not impossible depending on the psition of the conservatives. This would only be if the Conservatives wanted to continue (they might prefer the Liebrals in third and the NDP polarizing things). And of course it would need the Conservaitves to agree to the national emergency frame. Without that the Liberals could not make such a move.

 

Although very unlikely, a national emergency could lead to a coalition government like Borden's 1917 Union Government that occurred toward the end of the First World War. The Conservatives, NDP, and Liberals could all be a part of such a coalition government to establish unity and a common front as all three majour parties are on the same page on many foreign affairs issues like the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine and Russia.

mark_alfred

People should vote w/ their hearts, rather than some misconceived notion of how their neighbours are voting.

Of course, how anyone could vote Liberal with their hearts is a mystery to me.  Keeping corporate taxes low, unspecified carbon pricing promises reliant upon negotiations with provinces (previously green shift, dropped, and now who knows what), unspecified electoral reform, unspecified Senate musings (a better way to appoint ne'er-do-well redundant toadies?  Gimme a break), unspecified childcare promises that strongly suggest the past Dryden deal that was just a mish-mash of different and wildly varying agreements with the provinces (New Brunswick in particular) and let's face it -- any action on childcare kept being put off for three fucking majorities (so why believe this latest round of horseshit?), moving toward means-testing rather than toward universality (a humiliating and divisive prospect for lower income people).  How on earth anyone could vote the Liberals with their heart is a mystery (unless you're some rotten rich person who enjoys humiliating the poor while engaging in advocating less tariffs on China -- Trudeau's first question in the HoC -- and a very heavy emphasis on free rather than fair trade).  But, alas, the world is full of mysteries.

Northern PoV

A really good blog today on the main Rabble site:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/08/cheat-to-win-harper-electoral-game-plan

Duncan:  "Before you vote, ask yourself if your preferred candidate is prepared to vote non-confidence in a Harper minority government at the earliest opportunity afforded in Parliament, which would be the Speech from the Throne."

An excellent question..... and very unlike the media goading about coalitions.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Northern PoV wrote:

A really good blog today on the main Rabble site:

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/08/cheat-to-win-harper-electoral-game-plan

Duncan:  "Before you vote, ask yourself if your preferred candidate is prepared to vote non-confidence in a Harper minority government at the earliest opportunity afforded in Parliament, which would be the Speech from the Throne."

An excellent question..... and very unlike the media goading about coalitions.

 

Good question -- care to speculate on how the Liberal party and the NDP might respond? I could predict one response at least. I am not even sure you would get a second.

socialdemocrati...
Unionist

From Prystupa's article:

Quote:

Then Dion spectacularly proposed to become an interim Prime Minister in a controversial Liberal-NDP coalition backed by the Bloc Quebecois to replace the Conservative government. Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe famously shook on it, and signed a formal coalition agreement, giving NDP six cabinet posts. Harper would be defeated at the next parliamentary vote, in a kind of palace coup.

The political attack provoked a political crisis, and Harper prorogued parliament — a seldom used procedure to shut down parliament temporarily. He used the time over Christmas to stoke populist anger against the coalition proposal. Large, angry crowds soon gathered outside legislatures. People were confused —they thought Harper “won” the election. The coalition idea soon died.

Prystupa blames "the people" for the failure of the 2008 coalition.

That amply confirms my previous opinion about his analytical skills: Missing in action.

socialdemocrati...

Right. If Harper succeeded at anything, it was convincing the media to ignore the public, and treat the coalition as toxic. In actuality, opinion was pretty divided down obvious lines, perhaps even favorable towards a coalition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008–09_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#Polling

 

mark_alfred

I think after the Lib-Dem experience with it in Britain, that the Libs here view it as something to avoid.  Trudeau ruled out a coalition with either the Cons or NDP (though a bit less definitive on the latter than the former).  Perhaps an accord between the NDP and Libs if the Cons win a minority.  Otherwise, it'll likely be a play it as it goes approach on all issues of confidence.

NorthReport

So where do we go from here?

Election eve reflections on the leaders -- especially Trudeau

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/10/election-eve-refl...

quizzical

into the future with optimism and heart.

KarlL

Unionist wrote:
The article isn't very well written; it's tendentious and somewhat exaggerated; but it does contain several grains of truth.

One chief flaw, IMHO, at least from the portion that Wilf has cited, is its failure to entertain the prospect of a strategic alliance/accord between the Bloc and the NDP. Some give and take would be required on both sides. Duceppe might need to be even wilier in his balancing act as a separatist in a federal institution. Layton might have to dust off the Sherbrooke Declaration and re-read the September 2006 convention resolution. Duceppe (and Layton, who is sometimes there, sometimes not) would have to give up his bizarre "End the War in Iraq but I don't know about Afghanistan!" nonsense and decide, once and for all, that Canadian troops do need to come home now. And both of them would have to carve out a somewhat more left-wing stand on the social and economic issues of the day.

I'd love to see it happen. It would drive the Liberals insane. And it would show the Conservatives that a Quйbec - Rest of Canada alliance can be built on a progressive basis, not just а la Mulroney.

ETA: Omigod! Janfromthebruce and I crossposted, and we drank the same koolaid!!!

This could be bigger than the Orange Shift™. Let's do it!!!

[ 28 October 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

Kind of like what the Union Nationale did with Diefenbaker's Conservatives in 1958.  The problem though, is that it would be the kiss of death to the NDP in ROC.

Pages