Which Liberal will become Speaker?

Why does it have to be a Liberal? With a razor-thin minority, it could work to the Liberals' advantage to have an opposition speaker. It just comes down to whether members are more interested in seeing one of their own get the position, or in seeing *none* of their own lose the vote.

Also in Ontario they are called MPPs, not MLAs. :)

Any chance of a Liberal MPP going [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Walding]Jim Walding[/url] on the party?

In other news Debator in the last thread referred to the Liberal parties last night in a way that makes it clear he is a Liberal. That is the first time he has done so after claiming to be some unbiased progressive here merely coincidentally choosing the Liberals this time. (He was talking about the Liberal parties in Ottawa like someone who attended to celebrate.)

Obviously the Liberals feel very good about their results since Debator came on the Board last night. Those who have been around here a while know that Debator comes in when the Liberals are happy (victory of some kind or good poll) and vanishes as soon as there is any less than good news for the Liberal party.

Debator, I know you have been upset at how hostile people are to you and how dismissive of your opinions many people are here. I gather from the last few years you think it is because you are a Liberal (and no doubt that is why you hide, although badly, your colours) but it is three reasons your appearance here becomes an aggravation. Since this will be a time of cooperation I'll lay out the three with a suggestion for how that could work better:

1) You go away every time there is bad news for your party. Stick around and earn a reputation for being here consistently rather than causing a storm with a partisan post and then going away. Avoid this terribly predictable habit of showing up to gloat when there is good news and going away until the next time ignoring any replies. I am sure you will be received much better if people see your arrival as less provocative gloating and more open-discussion. Even as a partisan you can still discuss many things rather than come for talking points in good times only. Your comments in the last thread about taking NDP seats could be better received on this thread in that context. People do not want to begin a conversation with a person who takes their ball and goes home as soon as the news doesn't go their way.

2) You do not engage enough. When you come in you state talking points and then leave. When people reply please respond. Then your arrival and posts won't be taken as a nuisance. People get annoyed by the hit and runs. Really, it is not that you are Liberal it is this style of ignoring replies that is so grating. We have had open Conservatives here who have been well respected but they do not hide their colours, engage and have been here being thoughtful even when things are not great for their party.

3) You do not admit your partisanship. The denials over years that you are a partisan Liberal are so disingenuous that people can't take anything you say seriously. There is nothing wrong with choosing a party and being biased towards it (so long as you avoid bending facts to suit the narrative). If you came out and simply stated you are a Liberal with some progressive tendencies that is okay. I think the resistance comes from this constant claim that you are some neutral who just happens to be Liberal this time-- or recently -- after a few years it is just not credible.

So if you are direct about your bias (I admit mine why can't you admit yours?), engage when people engage you rather than run away, and stick around and discuss when there is bad news for your party as well as good, you could hugely increase the respect for yourself and your opinions here. Then the impact of your posts would be much greater.

I am saying this based on behavior not person so I don't think this is a personal attack. In fact, I take it that this is just some misunderstanding where you must think being Liberal rather than these easily correctable behaviors are the problem.

So McGuinty has won his election even by a minority as healthy as one can get. So it is hug a Liberal day. Let's try this again Debator. Can you try this?

[edited to add: I sent Debator a courtesy pm to say I responded to his post in this thread and hoped he took the feedback constructively. I wanted to be sure he knew where the response was since that thread was already closed. That way this cannot be missed.]

Okay, maybe it was just a made up line under the stress of putting the speech together at the last minute. The Premier's speech was delayed a bit as they were assessing the results right up to when he gave his speech.

I think McGuinty will govern just as Harper did in his minority - without much likelihood of either the PCs or NDP willing to be responsible for the fall of government; McGuinty has the closest thing to a majority possible. And last night's turnout was estimated by the CBC to be in the area of 48% - probably the lowest turnout ever. If the opposition causes another election without just cause they will be likely punished by the voters, and McGuinty given his majority.

ghoris wrote:

Again, I'm sure the NDP and PC leadership will forbid their members from standing for the Speakership, possibly on penalty of being expelled from the party and denied re-nomination. They could always unite and force the election of a Liberal speaker, as the winner must have a majority of votes to be elected.

The Speaker's chair may be attractive to an opposition member. It includes a pay raise and is a position with considerable power in a minority parliament, because of the authority to make procedural rulings and the ability to cast a tiebreaking vote. On the other hand, given how evenly balanced the legislature is, giving up a member to the speakers chair could hamstring the opposition parties. The Speaker's vote can't be "whipped" and without it the combined opposition can tie, but not outvote the Liberal caucus.

The opposition deputy speakers last term were Jim Wilson (PC), Cheri DiNovo (NDP) and Julia Munroe (PC), for what it's worth. The late Bruce Crozier was the Liberal deputy speaker before he resigned his seat.

http://speaker.ontla.on.ca/index.php/en/deputy-speakers.html

This is getting off topic, but are there any winning PC MPPs who might be close enough to the ideological fence to consider overtures from McGuinty?

Thanks Sean.  I got your message.  I will re-post my response to you here that I just sent you in PM.

I certainly do not mind 'constructive' criticism. All I have ever objected to since I first came here in 2009 is the extreme antipathy some posters here display to anything Liberal. They don't seem to realize that there are some left-leaning Liberals like myself who have supported the NDP in previous elections but who also are committed to seeing the Liberals survive because they are usually the only party who can stop the Conservatives.

Yes, I admit that for the past year I have been only a Liberal (although I am always on the far left of the Liberals) and moved full time to supporting the Liberals after the NDP made the Liberals rather than the Conservatives its target in the last federal election.  So I agree with you that I should identify myself as a Liberal now despite some of my previous work for the NDP.  I renewed my Liberal membership and am now a card-carrying member again.  So I will agree with you and officially come out as one.  (As you said above, I already thought I had pretty much said so on the other thread))

I just wish there was more balance on this board - there's nothing wrong with saying some negative and critical things about the Liberals because they do need a kick in the ass sometimes for getting too arrogant or too willing to go along with a Conservative program.  I just wish there were some positive things said here sometimes to balance it out.  Even progressive, pro-gay MPP's like Yassir Navqui don't seem to get any love here. : (

Oh well, it's good that Yassir got re-elected by a large margin.  I think that shows he obviously gets the progressive NDP vote in Ottawa Centre and can appeal to both Liberals and NDPers.

I would suggest Yassir as the next Speaker - young, racial minority, pro-gay, progressive.  He has it all.  Although I think since he is a rising star, the Ontario Libs may have cabinet plans for him.

Stockholm wrote:

Don't you think that if you want to stop the federal Conservatives - you have to stop splitting the vote by supporting a weak hopeless third party like the federal Liberals. A vote for the Liberals is now a vote for harper.

And the Liberals are not going to go away, so the Opposition vote will continue to be split, and Harper will cruise to another win (majority or minority) in 2015. You've just made my argument as to why the NDP and Liberals need to kiss and make up and get into bed together.

But my concern is that the NDP mainly takes from the Liberals and doesn't take much from the Conservatives.  Look at the Ontario election last night.  All 7 NDP gains came from the Liberals.  The NDP didn't defeat any Conservatives in Ontario.

The NDP needs to demonstrate that it can beat Conservatives, otherwise what is the point of abandoning the Liberals?

There was a little VERY wild speculation, but tht faded off in the last few days.

I suspect that the Hudak hate flyer about transgender issues scared a chunk of center-left voters who were leaning NDP back to the Liberals out of a feeling that they had to put "Stopping Hudak" above actually working for progressive change.

NorthReport wrote:

I think the voters would be extremely offended if any MPP crosses the floor.

Why? Maybe they want stable government, and maybe they regret the outcome. If it was an NDP Premier who got the minority, I'd be pleased as punch to see someone cross over.

NorthReport wrote:

I think the voters would be extremely offended if any MPP crosses the floor.

The 48% who bothered to vote?

The 18% of voters who voted for the Liberals would probably be delighted to see someone cross over to the liberals.

Did not vote: 52%
Libs: 18%
Cons: 17%
NDP: 11%

Many of the 28% of the voters who voted for the Conservatives and NDP would probably be pissed off.

Debater wrote:

The NDP needs to demonstrate that it can beat Conservatives, otherwise what is the point of abandoning the Liberals?

Well, the trouble there is that almost all the plausibly "NDP-winnable" PC seats in Ontario already went Liberal in '03.  All that was left was Oshawa, and maybe Sarnia-Lambton and Cambridge...

Tommy_Paine wrote:

Someone last night spun it as a resurection of Liberal fortunes in Ontario, that it reversed the downward trend in Liberal fortunes we saw in Federal politics.  It seems to me, however, to mirror that trend.

How is this a resurection of Liberal fortunes? From what I saw, the Liberal seat count went down last night.

Stockholm if you do not believe in strategic voting is it not the time to say so even when it in theory would benefit your party?

I do not believe in strategic voting. I do not want the Liberals to support us to stop the Conservatives. I want them to move to us because we have better policies for people.

You have to stick to your principles even when they have a cost. When you do they gain in credibility. This is the time we can show that we did not oppose strategic voting just for selfish reasons but because it is wrong and anti-democratic.

The irony and sarcasm and in your words Stockholm can be confused with selfishness. I know from your history that this is not you and that you are trying to make a point here but for people reading you out of context they could get the wrong idea and so I urge you to be careful as not all readers will approach what you write with the context and sophistication that was behind your words.

Now is a time to show we have principles and to stand up for what we believe -- it is not a time to get even.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Boom Boom wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

Don't you think that if you want to stop the federal Conservatives - you have to stop splitting the vote by supporting a weak hopeless third party like the federal Liberals. A vote for the Liberals is now a vote for harper.

And the Liberals are not going to go away, so the Opposition vote will continue to be split, and Harper will cruise to another win (majority or minority) in 2015. You've just made my argument as to why the NDP and Liberals need to kiss and make up and get into bed together.

Boom Boom, in every election since 2004, the Liberals have lost seats to the Conservatives and the NDP, while the NDP has taken seats from the Conservatives and the Liberals. So if only the NDP is capable of defeating the Conservatives, why would anybody back the Liberals?

The NDP has taken a few seats from the federal Conservatives, but not very many.  A few in British Columbia and a few in Quebec, and one in Alberta, but not any in Ontario or the Maritimes from what I can tell.  The NDP also failed to defeat any Conservatives in Saskatchewan or Manitoba.  In fact, the NDP lost 2 seats to the Conservatives in May 2011 - Bill Blaikie's old seat in Manitoba, and Tony Martin in Sault S.M.  The Orange Crush mainly crushed Liberals in May 2011 - not Conservatives.  Other than the Quebec Conservatives who went down with the BQ, I think the only other Conservative defeated by the NDP was Dona Cadman in B.C.

None!

But as you know, historically they have taken very, very many.

The NDP needs to establish that it can do the same thing.

That's the only point I'm making.

Jan, I acknowledged above that the NDP has taken some seats from the Conservatives.  I didn't say Quebec didn't count - I mentioned those.  But the point is Quebec is the only place where the 'orange crush' was big enough to take down the Cons this year.  In the rest of the country, the orange crush had virtually no effect on the Cons, only the Libs.

Why is it difficult to admit that the NDP takes more from the Liberals than it does from the Conservatives? 

robbie_dee wrote:

The Speaker's chair may be attractive to an opposition member.

The discussion on Steve Paikin's show The Agenda last night was pretty definitive. The experts all agreed that any opposition MPP accepting the Speakership would be treated as having crossed the floor. Not going to happen.

There is no available shortcut for the Liberals. They cannot govern without agreement or agreements with other parties. The press seems to miss this. The Liberals know it perfectly well. It may be day-to-day agreements, or longer-term. If the Liberals are going to make cuts rather than restore the corporate tax rate, it may be that the NDP will not want to be tarred by association with the cuts, so day-to-day may be the only option. This all remains to be seen. In 1985 it took 26 days to reach agreement.

For those who care about historic details: the election of 1985 was held on May 2, 1985. After 15 hours of negotiations and 26 days, on May 28 the NDP-Liberal Accord was signed. Since Miller had more seats, he chose to meet the House, which met June 4. On June 18 the motion of non confidence passed, when the Liberals and NDP defeated Miller's government. Miller formally resigned as Premier on June 26, 1985.

Debater wrote:

Why is it difficult to admit that the NDP takes more from the Liberals than it does from the Conservatives? 

It isn't.  They do take more votes from the Liberals than the Conservatives.  

And adma is right - this attempt by the LPC to bury the NDP by "uniting the left" has failed.  And it has cost the Liberals their right flank.  

Provincially the situation is quite different however.  The NDP has merely established itself as a credible third party, but I don't see them squeezing out the Liberals any time soon.

Fidel wrote:

Pinocchio can't stop talking about his 'major minority'.

That's inevitable at this early point: it feeds into the media headline-writers' meme that he won, and gives him a few more days before he has to start answering the question "how will you pass a budget or anything else without reaching some agreement with either the New Democrats or the PCs?" So it doesn't bother me at all, because it doesn't change the reality.

Fidel wrote:

The Liberals are not prepared to negotiate with any party, because that would be too much like democracy.

Many Liberals are democrats, but all of them are realists, as in, they can count.

Realists, yes, Wilf. So I'm thinking that the Liberals might package some legislations and changes or whatnot , and then sell it to a few members of either party in exchange for something or other. I hope the NDP is able to bargain for something meaningful in return for their support. Let's hope the Liberal vote tally is short by one for an extended period. The Petersen-NDP coalition was a fairly progressive period if I remember right.

Which two MMP's can be enticed to cross the floor in exchange for a front bench seat in government.  If I was the Liberals I would be trying to get one from the Cons and one from the NDP.  Now that would be a political coup and a majority government.  I know none of the MPP's but it seems to me the our traditional societal rule is that in any group of 12 there is one person who will take the silver. 

I would think the NDP would be interested in getting a good parliamentarian elected speaker including one of its own MPP's with the right stuff. Having a fair speaker means all the difference in the world in the ability to debate in the House and get the kinds of answers from a government that any oppostion is seeking.  Procedural rulings are important in a legislature.  I say to the NDP go for the Speaker's Chair since there is not going to be an election anytime in the near future and having your MPP's treated with respect in the House and allowed to ask tough questions is a major asset.