Will Libs dump Iggy before an Election?

Okay, all of this assumes no major changes in the Canadian political sphere. It seemed in 2003, even after the right was united, but before the sponsorship scandal that Harper and his Conservatives were unelectable, Paul Martin was going to lead the Liberals to unparallelled heights and the economy was churning along, which helped to re-enforce their strength. Then "the shit" hit the fan. So I think you folks are forgetting that there are things that are out of the control of each party that their handling of can determine where they will be.

For instance, unpopular provincial governments have an effect on election results. Let's pretend it's 2015. In 2015 we've entered another recession, almost as deep as this one. The NDP forms the government in BC and Nova Scotia, and is relatively unpopular in both. The Conservatives (or their allies) form a government in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland and are relatively unpopular in each of these. The PQ forms a government in Quebec, which is relatively unpopular. All of these things will negatively impact on the Conservatives and BQ. It will suppress the NDP's momentum in BC and Nova Scotia (important provinces for them). Supposing the long in the tooth Conservative government is also beset by numerous scandals and pandering to their base, that too could hurt the them. Also, due to long term irrelevance the Greens have withered back to irrelevance. I could imagine a vote count of something like: 41% L, 29% C, 17% N, 9% B, 3% G, 1% Otrs/Indies. This would likely mean the Conservatives would be shut out of Quebec again, probably loose most of their urban seats, a majority of their suburban seats and that the NDP gains in Quebec would be limited yet again.

The math is difficult. And I would agree that in the short term minority governments and coalitions are far more likely. None of these scenarios are on the horizon right now, but who knows what will happen in the next five years.

Vansterdam Kid wrote:

For instance, unpopular provincial governments have an effect on election results. Let's pretend it's 2015. In 2015 we've entered another recession, almost as deep as this one. The NDP forms the government in BC and Nova Scotia, and is relatively unpopular in both. The Conservatives (or their allies) form a government in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, PEI and Newfoundland and are relatively unpopular in each of these. The PQ forms a government in Quebec, which is relatively unpopular. All of these things will negatively impact on the Conservatives and BQ. It will suppress the NDP's momentum in BC and Nova Scotia (important provinces for them). Supposing the long in the tooth Conservative government is also beset by numerous scandals and pandering to their base, that too could hurt the them. Also, due to long term irrelevance the Greens have withered back to irrelevance. I could imagine a vote count of something like: 41% L, 29% C, 17% N, 9% B, 3% G, 1% Otrs/Indies. This would likely mean the Conservatives would be shut out of Quebec again, probably loose most of their urban seats, a majority of their suburban seats and that the NDP gains in Quebec would be limited yet again.

The math is difficult. And I would agree that in the short term minority governments and coalitions are far more likely. None of these scenarios are on the horizon right now, but who knows what will happen in the next five years.

Something like this scenario will likely happen. It looks like the Liberal governments in Ontario, BC, and Quebec are all on their way out. Once these unpopular Liberal governments are gone, federal Liberal popularity will likely grow again. Premiers Tim Hudak, Pauline Marois, and Carole James might be having dinner with Prime Minister Ignatieff at 24 Suzzex one day not so far away. Or more likely, Ignatieff's succesor, likely from Quebec, will get that pleasure.

History shows:

Chretien was blessed with having to run against Bob Rae and Bill Harris in Ontario, Glenn Clark in BC, and Jacques Parizeau in Quebec.

Mulroney was lucky to run against David Peterson in Ontario and Rene Levesque in Quebec.

Trudeau was lucky to run against Levesque in Quebec and Bill Davis and Dave Robarts in Ontario.

It's no accident that while the Liberals were the natural governing party federally the PC party was the natural governing party in Ontario. And its no accident that the federal Liberals have prospered when the Union Nationale and Parti Quebecois have ruled Quebec.

Harper has not been as lucky as Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. He has been able to only run against McGuinty. The BQ has been able to run against Charest. If Quebec had had a PQ government, Harper would have got his majority.

The ying-yang federal/provincial nature of Canadians politics is difficult to overcome as governments always eventually lose popularity and bring down their political cousins.

The failure and success of politicians  is, to a great extent, out of their control. If John Tory had won in Ontario, Ignatieff would probably be PM today.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

FM-- the example you give of Chretien does not work as it was only the unusual situation of the split right that allowed the Liberals to get a majority without Quebec.

The Liberals cannot win a majority without either the West or Quebec. They did it only because they swept Ontario during the PC/Alliance split period. Under normal conditions that would not be possible.

As well each new redistribution has increased the difficulty for the Liberals to manage anything close to a majority without Quebec or the west. Ontario and Atlantic Canada will never deliver enough seats to balance poor showing in Quebec and the West.

But the Conservatives are split, Sean. The coalition, today, is not the grand coalition of Brian Mulroney but a rather narrow coalition of Ontario Harrisites and Alberta bigots ... er ... social conservatives. That is why despite a very weak Liberal Party they can't climb into majority territory.

Ottawa Observer, with all due respect, focusing on numbers forgets that politics is (ought to be) about persuasion and seats do change hands because voters change preferences even if only for a period of time.

If you view conservatives as represented only by parties, then, sure, there is no split as there is a single right wing conservative party. Granted. But the fact there is only one party papers over the fact that there are a great many conservatives who are not active supporters or participants in the Harperist party. If they were, Harper would likely have his majority. The cons today, are essentially the Alliance-crap of a few years ago. The red tories and many of the principled conservatives are political orphans. And let's not kid ourselves, they represent a political force. With them, the cons could court a majority. Without them, the cons will always be in a minority at best. And the only reason we have a Harper minority is because the Liberals are so pathetic. And I agree with you, No party has ever held a majority without either the West or Quebec. So what? Are you arguing the Bloc has x number of seats and always shall no matter what transpires in the future or what is offered to Quebec voters? Are you arguing the seat count in the West is set in concrete and neither the Liberals nor the NDP can ever improve their fortunes no matter the circumstance? Because if so, why bother with an electoral process at all?

The fact is we are stuck where we are not because of riding maps but because none of the parties have what it takes to capture the imagination of voters. The cons only know how to sow division and contempt, the Liberals are prisoners of their own shadows, and the NDP is afraid to break loose and truly engage voters in a left discourse of possibilities.

We have arrived at the Canadian Land of Paridise in Mediocrity.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

Ottawa Observer, with all due respect, focusing on numbers forgets that politics is (ought to be) about persuasion and seats do change hands because voters change preferences even if only for a period of time.

This is a fair point.  I was just looking at the numbers and trying to imagine how persuasive Michael Ignatieff would have to be in order to overcome them.  Then I wrote that post.

JKR wrote:

Notice a major exception? Brian Mulroney from Quebec. They hated him so much they started a new Alberta based party that split up the right for over a decade.

Except of course that Albertans voted for Mulroney in overwhelming numbers in the two elections he contested, and it wasn't until the Conservatives were led by a westerner (K. Campbell) that they jumped ship.

The only way I see a Conservative majority is if there is a meltdown in Liberal support as the electorate tires of Iggy, which might still happen. If Iggy attacks Harper on really substantive issues between now and the next election, then he might get a reprieve. A meltdown of Liberal support would likely benefit both the Cons and NDP, but mostly the Cons. I can't stand Iggy at all, but I still don't want to see him lose on a Kim Campbell scale - because that would give Harper an overwhelming majority, which would be the end of this country as we know it.

FM,

The old dynamic of the Liberal party, since Laurier, was that it was the great national party.  Real or not, the other parties responded to the big Red machine.

The Tories, under Diefenbaker, Clark and ultimately Mulroney, tried to harnass the Western conservative populists, Red Tories and soft Quebec nationalists into an alternative.  All these groups were opposed to Liberal rule but would find that building a unifying political agenda once in government was hard to do.  Diefenbaker and Clark's coalitions were defeated before the cleavages could really become exposed but Mulroney had the whole project explode spectacularly with the Bloc and Reform splits.

Harper has managed to pull the Reform and Red Tory factions together and has hit upon an interesting strategy to deal with Quebec - even if more by default than design - leave it to the Bloc.  The BQ, even though far more progressive than the old Blue nationalists of the past, are effectively occupying Tory seats in so far as they are being denied to the Liberals.

Whereas Quebec nationalists used to sit out federal politics by NOT participating - electing Liberals - they are now sitting out federal politics by running as the Bloc - not electing Tories but denying the Liberals a huge chunk of seats.  Quebec has minimal representation around the cabinet table but with a anti-activist Conservative govenment this may not be as significant to most Quebecois voters as would be the case were the federal government dynamically working on a true Green agenda or some other grand national project.

The creation of the Bloc is so significant for everyone because they force the a Parlaimentary majority (Liberal or Conservative) of 155 seats to be formed from a pool of 253-268 non-Bloc seats, giving the Bloc between 40-55 seats.  A total, non-Bloc, oppostion of less than 98-113 seats is hard to imagine.  Can Iggy really do much worse than Dion?  Even if the Harperites fell flat on their face can they really be expected to get less than 75 (BC 10, AB 25, SK 5, MB 5, Ont 25, PQ 0, Atl 5) without the NDP/Liberal numbers rising sufficiently to deny the other a majority?

I have to agree with the central thesis raised by most of the posters here, a majority government is just not in the cards for anyone.  So the question is do we continue to accept perpetual minority Tory rule as a result of Liberal unwillingness to work a deal or do the Liberals embrace the role of senior partner in a progressive coalition (accepting, for the moment, that the Liberal party is somehow a progressive party of the center-left)?  I hope for the later but, returning momentarily to the title of the thread, I think Iggy will make one last cavelry charge into the guns of reality before coming the that conclusion (or before being replace by someone else who will).

In other words, the Liberals like the the idea of a coalition as long as it doesn't mean that they actually have to share power with any other party! :-)

Liberal Insecurities

http://www.ottawasun.com/comment/columnists/greg_weston/2010/05/12/13926...

"Nanos Research, which regularly tracks public perceptions of the various political leaders, recently found Ignatieff trailing both the PM and even Jack Layton on issues of trust and vision for Canada. In fact pollster NiK Nanos says the results show a level of voter disgust not seen since the sponsorship scandal.."

a plague on all their houses..

The redistribution bill changes the formula that would be used in a redistribution to allocate seats.  Redistributions only happen after a dicennial (?diennial?) census.  The next census one is not until 2011.  The last one took from 2001 to 2003 to translate into an actual redistribution.

I think your cautions are well worth taking to heart, though, Nicky.  A lot of the Conservatives' bump in support came at the expense of Liberals, who either switched to the Conservatives, or stayed home (thus increasing their share of the actual vote), but also from potential NDP-Conservative switchers in southwest Ontario.  If the Liberals collapse further, god knows where that vote goes, so we really have to hustle to stay competitive for it.  But I also like that the NDP is now actively targetting the Conservatives.  The public's mind is made up on Ignatieff, and that fight is already lost for them, so there's little to be gained attacking the Liberals any further, particularly if we want to win some of their support.

Lou Arab wrote:

JKR wrote:

Notice a major exception? Brian Mulroney from Quebec. They hated him so much they started a new Alberta based party that split up the right for over a decade.

Except of course that Albertans voted for Mulroney in overwhelming numbers in the two elections he contested, and it wasn't until the Conservatives were led by a westerner (K. Campbell) that they jumped ship.

Campbell was PM for less then a year. Albertans stopped supporting the PC Party long before Mulroney resigned.

Preston Manning formed the Reform Party long before Campbell came into power.

Boom Boom wrote:

Layton and Duceppe would really have to hold their noses if they entered into a coalition with Iggy, and in the highly unlikely event it were to happen, they'd better have conditions for their support written down on paper. Layton had praise for Dion, I doubt he has any for Iggy.

If their only other alternative is continuing on with Harper, I think Layton and Duceppe would jump at the chance of coming to some kind of agreement with Ignatieff.

Layton, Duceppe, and Ignatieff, are all so fed up with Harper, that Harper's only sure way of staying in power is to get a majority.

For what it's worth, here's my prediction: If Harper doesn't win 140 or more seats in the next election the Liberals, NDP, and BQ, will all vote against the Harper government's throne speech. The NDP and BQ will then not enter into a coalition with the Liberals but they'll get some major concessions from the new Liberal minority government that include electoral reform and set election dates that preclude an early resolution of the government. These are two of the key provisos in the UK coalition.

Stockholm wrote:

ottawaobserver wrote:

 A lot of the Conservatives' bump in support came at the expense of Liberals, who either switched to the Conservatives, or stayed home (thus increasing their share of the actual vote), but also from potential NDP-Conservative switchers in southwest Ontario. 

I think another phenomenon last election was that the NDP lost a lot of NDP-Conservative swing voters in BC at the very end. I doubt if the Tories will get anywhere near 45% of the vote in BC next time.

You've posted this prediction several times now.

You may be right, but you may not.  The bottom line in B.C. will be the seat count, though.  If the NDP can't win back Vancouver Island North and Surrey North, a decrease in the popular vote won't mean a whole lot in terms of seats.

Same thing goes for the Liberals.  If they want to win ridings like North Vancouver back they will have to make an effort.

I'd also like to see the NDP take dead aim at DOCTOR PROFESSOR Keith Martin in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. He shoudl be given an award for being the most unctuous, sanctimonious and at the same time hypocritical and opportunistic MP in Canadian politics. That seat is natural NDP territory, we just need to get rid of DOCTOR PROFESSOR.

Persichilli: Michael Ignatieff's 25 per cent problem 

Persichilli is always trying to stir things up within the Liberal party to get Iggy dumped. So one has to take the actual content of his diatribes with a big dose of salt. 

What I found interesting was: "Liberals are resigned to another defeat, as long as the Conservatives don't win a majority government."

Just another Liberal stuck in the exitless loop of no governing for them without getting a majority.

Knock, knock, knock: Iggy may well be making things worse, but you couldnt plan for getting a majority anyway. If not getting a majority is the measure of failure, then you can only fail.

It's now ben almost six months since the great game changing event occurred. I refer of course to PETER DONOLO, ther omniscient, omnipotent, miracle worker who can make a purese out of any sow's ear - taking over as Iggy Chief of Staff. Supposedly, DONOLO was going to be a GAME CHANGER and would revolutionize the DON-OLO.

Where is the evidence that the Liberals and Iggy are doing any better now than before the "GREAT DONOLO" came into the picture?

"I can actually think if a few reasons why the Bloc would be supportive of PR.  One is principled.  Going back to the days of Rene Lesveque, the PQ and later the Bloc have been strong democrats."

Yet, even though it was part of the PQ platform to support PR back in the early 70s, they never lifted a finger to move forward on it when they had majority governments 1976-1985 or 1995-2003. I suppose partly because the PQ tends to benefit from first past the post since the Liberals tend to "waste" so many votes in non-francophone ridings etc...

You do have a point about how the BQ could in some ways be more influential with PR since minority parliaments would be guaranteed in perpetuity and the BQ would almost always get at least a third (ie: 25) of Quebec's seats. BUT, with PR there would be a vastly better chance of parties being able to form coalitions excluding the BQ. For example, in the 2008 election, if we had had PR the Liberals, NDP and Greens would have had a majority of seats on their own and there would have been no reason to bother touching the "plutonium" of the BQ.

What manner is that? The BQ has never been part of a coalition government federally nor does it have any desire to.

Unfortunately, as we learned last year - whether we like it or not any FORMAL agreement with the Bloc Quebecois is political plutonium outside Quebec. I wish it were not so - but the world as it is and not as it should be.

If we had proportional representation, then it would be easy to form governments without having to deal with horrific optics of involving the BQ. Quite frankly, the BQ doesn't WANT to be included anyways. They have had no formal role in government since they entered the house in the early 90s. They desire no formal role in government. That's the way they like it.

Duceppe even understands that he's plutonium outside Quebec. In December 2008, he apparently even suggested to the Liberals and NDP that maybe he should not be in the coalition signing ceremony with Dion and Layton because he knew that it would look really bad in English Canada - and he was right.

Duceppe may be a lot of things but he's not stupid - he knows that his party is hated outside Quebec. The last thing Duceppe was worying about was what his own audience would think. He was willing to make a deal to make Stephane Dion PM, the father of the Clarity Act, a man who is about as popular (not) as Trudeau in Quebec nationalist circles. 

I think its an undeniable FACT that having to include the BQ creates a major complication for any opposition deal to get rid of the Tories. If we had three parties in parliament instead of four - it would be a no-brainer for the Liberals and NDP to make a deal to ditch a Conservative party that was so much as one seat short of a majority.

First of all, as far as Quebec was concerned - whether Duceppe was in a photo op with Dion or not - there was no getting away from what was happening - but Duceppe (according to Brian Topp's book "How we almost gave the Tories the boot" was specifically concerned that his presence in the picture might be damaging in English Canada. If Duceppe had any concerns about what it would do to his own image - all he had to do was refuse to be in the same room with Dion.

There is no getting away from the fact that the BQ is a deeply unpopular party in English Canada and that having to even give the appearance of including them indirectly in government is a major problem. I wish this was not the case - but it is and I think someone would have t be delusional to try to deny it.

The Liberals problems are deeper than their leader, and they know it even if you dont.

Yes, I was aware I might sound like giving them more credit than intended. Oh well.

Correction: even the Liberal brain trust doesnt seem to know how deep their problems are, but most of them do know enough to realize that as much a dissapointment as Iggy is, switching leaders isn't going to solve their problems, and switching leaders now is a recipe for having even more problems.