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

Great thread - thanks for finding it, NR! Really interesting to see how various opinions measured up to later events.

ajaykumar wrote:

Sorry the liberals have moved. If you are the NDP seeking an accord with us press 1,.... our customer service department will be happy to assist you... Beep Beep.........Sorry We are closed at this time, we will open again in 2019. 

entitled to their entitlements one could say. I hope you stick around till after the election. Should be interesting to hear the excuses.

I think both opposition parties may be in for a rough deal in the next election.  There may be a lot of non-Conservative voters who are angry with both the NDP & the Liberals.

And Nathan Cullen & Joyce Murray may come off looking pretty good.  Mulcair & Trudeau may have to sit down and come to some difficult realizations if Harper wins again.

A Harper Minority will also raise some serious questions for the Liberals & NDP.

Why a Liberal-NDP coalition is no longer such a scary concept for cautious centrists

Given the doubts about Mr. Trudeau’s abilities, and the aura of competence around Mr. Mulcair, a coalition might not sound like such a scary proposition to cautious centrists any more. It might even be a plus.

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Andrew+Coyne+Liberal+coalition+longe...

NorthReport wrote:

They’re playing into his hands

http://citizen.on.ca/?p=3400

Without a doubt, we’re about to see another election in which two centre-left parties with a few disagreements on policy destroying any chance either will have of forming the next federal government.

.......

The irony, of course, is that the Liberals and New Democrats are a lot closer on the political spectrum than were the old Progressive Conservative and Reform Party, particularly after the Reformers formed the Canadian Alliance. Yet there’s not only no talk these days of either a merger of the two parties or even of entertaining the option of a coalition government should no party win a majority.

In other words the NDP might as well fold because they have become a copycat party.

The Liberals are running neck and neck with the Conservatives without having released an election platform. Conservative media is desperately pushing the NDP because they are still hoping the Conservatives can come up the middle.

If Mulcair were serious about trying to form a coalition of any sort he would be talking to the Liberals not the press.

 

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/03/19/stephen-harper-wants-gg-davi...

 

Liberals, if they wish to do an honest soul search can look to themselves and in particular to John Manley, Bob Rae, and Michael Ignastieff as probably the persons most responsible for the Cons being in power with a majority government today.

Quote:

On January 28, 2009, the Liberals agreed to support the budget as long as it included regular accountability reports, and the Conservatives accepted this amendment. This ended the possibility of the coalition, with Layton publicly denouncing Ignatieff's decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

And so it begins

Party that wins federal election could be squeezed out of government

In the likely prospect of a hung Parliament, it’s not obvious who the governor general will call upon to form the government this time, or how long they would last in power

 

If Harper ends up with a plurality of seats he will probably continue to govern until there is another election, as he is too smart and too ruthless to think otherwise.

Even if the NDP had a plurality of seats, with the Cons second, and the Liberals third, if the Cons and the Libs had enough seats to form a majority, Harper would remain in power with support from the Libs. 

That is why the NDP needs to win a majority government on its own.

On transition planning

I've previously highlighted the need for media and citizens alike to press our opposition parties on how they're willing to cooperate to replace the Harper Cons after the next federal election. But let's note that there's a similar question which still needs to be directed at Stephen Harper at every available opportunity - even if we can't expect much more than instructive non-answers.

As Andrew Coyne notes, it's still an open question how far Harper would go in trying to cling to power under all kinds of circumstances:

http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.ca/2015/03/on-transition-plannin...

 

They do. And a government that's half NDP is better than a government with no NDP. Even a lot of Liberal voters agree with that. Once again, as the election gets closer, your boy is going to find himself on the wrong side of public opinion.

On Scenario 3, - if the Libs get more votes than the Cons but fewer seats (which is certainly possible) and if the NDP and Libs negotiate some sort of post-electoral coalition agreement (ie beyond a one-off non-confidence vote in the new CPC Gov't) , - then I think the GG will be very hard-pressed to accept a request from Harper to prorogue, and will feel compelled to give the Opposition an opportunity to govern.

ETA: And particularly so if the coalition holds many more seats than the Cons (eg 190 to 140).

NorthReport wrote:

If the Cons get the most number of seats, and everyone is presenting forecasting they will, Harper and/or the Cons will govern for the next 4 years or call another election before then.

Scenario 1:

Harper get majority

Scenario 2:

Harper gets minority will be supported by Liberals, regardless of any formal agreement

Scenario 3:

If the NDP and the Libs try to bring Harper down, Harper will prorogue and then call an election.

 

I disagree.

1) The Liberals know that they have no choice politically but to replace Harper if they can-- otherwise the following election would be the end for the Liberal party assuming it even stays together without splitting completely before that election. They cannot repeat the previous support for Harper (there are many reasons for this that we can debate if we really need to). The Liberals well understand what would happen if they support Harper after the next election.

2) If the Liberals and NDP together win a clear majority in seats and in votes and they choose to govern together (which I say is a political necessity for both of them) -- the GG would have little choice as in that case there would be public demands perhaps even general strikes to push that.

3) The option of a new election is one the GG would have very little legal support for if this came up at the first meeting of the House. The GG's first obligation is to see that a government is in place. There is no possible argument that a second election back to back would produce any majority. The country would be economically and politically hammered by such a delay. The GG would hav no choice but to offer government to any combination of two parties that could give assurances that they would govern for two years. In the case of the NDP and the Liberals there is little doubt that between them if they had the most seats they would also have well over 50% popular support. As well both parties are running with a mandate to topple the Harper government so to ignore their combined mandate the GG would face a public wave of discontent and lack of confidence in the political system.

I note that the Harper media are trying to make this question fuzzy in the hope that Harper could hang on with a minority. They claim that there is no clear answer. But there actually is and the courts can speak to that. The GGs first obligation is to having a government. The only way he could consider an election is if he had extremely strong evidence that a new election wudl have a different result than the last. It would be impossible to make that case right after an election unless some new revelation came up. Nobody voting for the NDP or Liberals could possibly argue that they do not have a mandate to work together (something different than the deal between the NDP, Lib and BQ a few years ago).

The GG could be in a position to demand conditions from the NDP and the Liberals -- for example he could ask that there be a formal accord, common agreement on critical issues in order to be satisfied that there could be a joint agenda. There is no question that as unhappy the two parties would be to being forced together, they would comply.

If the Liberals decide to give Harper a chance -- approving a throne speech only then Harper would have a powerful argument to demand an election once that deal breaks down. If Trudeau would be so stupid we would then have an election where the Liberal party would no longer be a factor. Perhaps some of their elected members would jump to the NDP and stand as NDP in the next election. Trudeau knows that he cannot go into an election as a potential supporter of Harper in the following parliament. He could repeat Harper policies, perhaps, but he could not keep the CPC in power and hold his party together.

People speak about what is at stake for each of the parties. Most say that it is critical for the Conservatives to get a majority. It isn't. They can go in opposition and be a threat in the following election. The Liberals are the ones who need a plurality at least if not a majority. If they are without a plurality and have to work with the NDP this is very bad for them and will lead to the continued erosion of the Liberal party -- this erosion could be reversed with the right circumstances and leadership.This would be much worse for the Liberals than another Conservative majority where the Liberals can still be in independent opposition.

If they work with the Conservatives the Liberal party faces an immediate split in supporters and MPs with some going to the Conservatives and probably many to the NDP. The remainder would be a spent force that would never recover.

The Liberals would have to take a drink of the poison they might recover from rather than the one they could not possibly recover.

If the Liberals have at least a plurality they are in a dangerous position but have a hope of governing for some time on a case by case basis hoping they can increase their support to majority ranges before the government falls.

This explains the Liberal attacks on the NDP. The Conservatives threaten their chance at governing. But the NDP are the threat to their very existence. If the Liberals come behind the NDP again they will never recover; if they come behind the Conservatives they are in a dangerous position where they might not be able to recover if they work with the NDP and absolutely can't recover if they work with the Conservatives.

As for the Conservatives, they want most the destruction of the Liberal party. If I were Stephen Harper and the Liberals were in this position, I would not resign upon losing but would convince my party to keep me. By staying and forcing Trudeau to work either with Harper or the NDP Harper will have managed in defeat what he could not in victory-- completely end the Liberal party of Canada as a force in politics. Many people will accept that if the Trudeau name cannot bring back that party it is not possible or worthwhile to do so.

If there was no majority government and the parties finished 1 - Cons, 2 - NDP, and 3 - Libs, Harper would continue to govern, just like he did previously in 2008.

There are 2 issues involved here:

First - the Liberals would never ever support an NDP government. 

Second - Harper would prorogue, and then after six months had gone by since the election, Harper or whoever the Cons Leader was, would call for another election, and the GG would grant it.

Harper has all his ducks in a row. Why do you think Johnston was given a 2-year extension?

Now if there was no majority and the parties finished: 1 - NDP, 2 - Cons, 3 - Libs, the Libs would support the Cons there as well.

Sorry but I just can't see the day the Libs would ever support an NDP-led government.

NorthReport wrote:

Scenario 3:

If the NDP and the Libs try to bring Harper down, Harper will prorogue and then call an election.

That (prorogation) occurred last time, but (if I remember correctly) Harper last time had already presented a throne speech.  If he was rejected immediately by the majority of parliament, then I feel that the governor general would be hard pressed to allow another election or a prorogation so soon.

There has been little disccussion about David Johnson as GG. We must remember that he had a long history as a partisan Conservative before his appointment. He was given the assignment to draft the parameters of the inquiry into Mulroney's corruption and ran interference  then for the Conservatives in narrowing the terms of reference to prevent a full-scale inquiry.

No doubt Harper had this in mind when he appointed him. I agree with Sean that if a minority Harper government is defeated in the House soon after the election the GG wd have to call on the opposition if they could command a majority. He could not grant Harper a dissolution. For all of the criticism of Lord Byng this seems to be the clear constitutonal imperative in such circumstances. I read Eugene Forsey years ago and he makes this very clear.

Nonetheless, Harper has always played fast and loose with democratic niceties. Everything he does is for a political reason. I am not predicting that Johnson will flout clear constitutional norms but to the extent that he may have some discretion in less than clear cut circumstances I have a real concern that he will come to Harper's rescue.

I think the hung parliament of the UK 2010 election serves as an example of how things could play out if a minority situation occurred here.  Granted, the winner of the plurality went on to become the government, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, I feel.

NorthReport wrote:

Does there not have to be a vote of non-confidence?

Harper can probably delay the vote for 6 months and by then if he loses confidence he will convince the GG to call an election.

 

Quote:

The 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute was a political dispute during the 40th Canadian Parliament. It was triggered by the expressed intention of the opposition parties (who together held a majority of seats in the House of Commons) to defeat the Conservative minority government on amotion of non-confidence six weeks after the federal election on October 14, 2008.

The intention to vote non-confidence arose from the government's fiscal update, tabled on November 27, 2008. It included several contentious provisions that were rejected by the opposition parties and that the government would later withdraw to resolve the crisis. The Liberal Party and New Democratic Party reached an accord to form a minority coalition government. The Bloc Québécois agreed to provide support on confidence votes, thereby enabling the coalition a majority in the Commons. On December 4, 2008, Governor General Michaëlle Jean (the representative of the Canadian monarch andhead of state, Elizabeth II) granted Prime Minister Stephen Harper (the head of government) a prorogation on the condition that parliament reconvene early in the new year; the date was set as January 26, 2009. The first session of the 40th parliament thus ended, delaying a vote of no-confidence.[1]

After prorogation, the Liberals underwent a change in leadership and distanced themselves from the coalition agreement, while the NDP and Bloc remained committed to bring down the government. The Conservative government's budget, unveiled on January 27, 2009, largely met the demands of the Liberals who agreed to support it with an amendment to the budget motion.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute

 

When Harper meets the House (if he chooses to as PM) he needs to pass a throne speech. If he can't He cannot continue. If the opposition can prove it has the numbers to obtain confidence, the GG calling an election would be wrong, possibly illegal.

Remember any PM can meet the House after an election. Usually when they lose they decline as they know there is no hope -- this is what they do when they concede. In this case if Harper decided not to concede but to meet the House and then did not have confidence he would have lost the election.  To win an election it means you ahve enough members to gain confidence.

In this case the first obligation of the GG is to find out if there is a winner -- a party with the votes to gain confidence. To skip that for partisan purposes and call an election would create a crisis. Johnstone is not stupid and I don't think he would do that.

The one area where Johnston could serve Harper is if the balance of power rested with the BQ or another small party (The NDP and Liberals did not have  majority even together). In this case Johnstone could demand additional assurances that the proposed government was stable. Johnston being GG could provide hope for Harper if the NDP and Liberals fall short of a majority.

As well, if the Liberals were stupid enough to allow the Conservatives a window by failing to support a vote against the throne speech, the GG would be able to help. Prorogation could be on the table to provide a cooling off period to ensure a coalition would stay together.

There is no doubt that there are situtations where a friendly GG can help Harper. However, if the NDP and Liberals have a majority between them and the Liberals agree to bring down the government, there is nothing the GG can or would do to prevent them from taking power.

If Harper has fewer seats than the NDP and Liberals combined it might be seen as churlish for him to refuse to resign and allow them the option of governing. In this case public opinion would most likely swing against Harper as strongly as it did against a coalition that required support from the BQ. For the GG to ignore that would do permanent damage to the monarchy in Canada.

We ave to recognize that the GG is weaker today than the position was decades ago during the King Byng affair. A similar conflict today could easily lead to a willingness for Canada to abolish the monarchy. If the GG and the monarchy behave, such a move is unlikely in the near future. This means that the GG will always have an eye on where the public is. He will not try to save Harper if the public will is clearly against him.

It was not the GG in 2008 that killed the coalition. It was public opinion. The Liberal party followed public opinion. The GG merely delayed for a short term the accounting of that opinion. The public opinion would never ahve gone the way it did without BQ participation.

I say all this without aggreement with the prevailing pubic opinion -- I always felt that the BQ had a right to participate as any other MPs. I did not object to their participation.

NorthReport wrote:

If Harper wins the most number of seats but without a majority I am convinced he will stay in power and then when crunch time comes he will get support from another party or he will ask the GG to dissolve Parliament and call an election. The Liberals supported him before before and there is no reason to believe they would not do it again. It is not what I would want to see happen Sean, but we will just have to disagree on this.

I guess we will disagree on both counts. I'd be delighted if the Liberals did do this. We would have at most two more years of Harper and then he AND the Liberal party would be gone forever.

I just don't think, as much as we could hope, that the Liberal party would be that incredibly stupid.

I am seeing visions of one white and black striped cat with a rose stuck up its ass.

 

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

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

As I say if the NDP and the Liberals between them have a majority he has little choice.

I agree. The Conservatives would lose control over the House of Commons if the NDP and LPC together win more than 170 seats.

Stockhom wrote: "... during the period between parliament being dissolved and a new government establishing its confidence post election the powers [of the PM] are EXTREMELY limited."

Well, I am old enough to remember the Clark Gov't of 1979, and that was certainly not its playbook. The election was in February and the House was not convened for a Throne Speech until October. (It fell in December on a budget vote.) In the intervening 6 months, the Clark Gov't was quite activist on a number of fronts - both internationally and domestically, - and most notably around energy policy: addressing issues around the gap between Canadian and world prices ($4 vs $5 a barrel!), the future of Petro Canada, etc. 

So it doesn't have to be sit-around-and-twiddle-your-thumbs time.  Canadians would likely be surprised (maybe not) at the levers and powers a Gov't and its Ministers have once it is sworn in - and that are completely independent of Parliament.  

And in the case of this scenario with Harper - a sitting gov't returned to power and not a fresh new, incoming team - I suspect they would be even more activist before ever having to face the House for an actual vote of confidence.

sherpa-finn wrote:

Stockhom wrote: "... during the period between parliament being dissolved and a new government establishing its confidence post election the powers [of the PM] are EXTREMELY limited."

Well, I am old enough to remember the Clark Gov't of 1979, and that was certainly not its playbook. The election was in February and the House was not convened for a Throne Speech until October. (It fell in December on a budget vote.) In the intervening 6 months, the Clark Gov't was quite activist on a number of fronts - both internationally and domestically, - and most notably around energy policy: addressing issues around the gap between Canadian and world prices ($4 vs $5 a barrel!), the future of Petro Canada, etc. 

So it doesn't have to be sit-around-and-twiddle-your-thumbs time.  Canadians would likely be surprised (maybe not) at the levers and powers a Gov't and its Ministers have once it is sworn in - and that are completely independent of Parliament.  

And in the case of this scenario with Harper - a sitting gov't returned to power and not a fresh new, incoming team - I suspect they would be even more activist before ever having to face the House for an actual vote of confidence.

I think Stockholm is correct here. After an election the sitting Prime Minister's powers are limited until the Governor General is able to determine which person likely has the confidence of the new House of Commons. In 1979 the Governor General recognized Joe Clark as having the confidence of the House of Commons when Prime Minister Trudeau conceded to Clark immediately after the election. At that point it was clear that a majority of the House of Commons recognized Clark as having the confidence of the House so at that point Clark was able to meet with the GG and get formal permission from him to assemble a new cabinet and new government before a Throne Speech and sitting of Parliament. So after an election a sitting Prime Minister's powers are limited until the GG can determine which person likely has the confidence of the House of Commons. So if Mulcair and Justin Trudeau don't concede to Harper after the election, Harper's powers would be limited until the GG could determine who likely has the confidence of the House of Commons. If the NDP and LPC win more than 170 seats, either Mulcair or Trudeau would have to concede to Harper in order for Harper to regain his full prime ministerial powers. After the election the GG will try to determine as quickly as possible which person has the confidence of the House. If it's not clear who that is, the GG would want the House to meet as quickly as possible to decide the question.

I wouldn't put much past Harper if he got the most seats but not a majority. He would immediately declare victory and denounce any alternative as a ""coalition of losers." He could delay recalling Parliament for as long as Joe Clark did in 1979 and in the meantime pass innumerable orders in council and make innumerable appointments including filling the Senate with ideologues who could derail legislation proposed by a new government.
Harper has shown repeatedly that he has no respect for democratic norms so why should he start?

NorthReport wrote:

I'm sure there is an unwritten pact between the Con and Lib backers to keep the NDP out. You will never ever see it in writing but the business community would force the Libs to back the Cons if the Con & Lib seat count results in more votes than the NDP's 1st place, but without a majority, finish.  

If the Cons did not finish in 1st place Harper would change his tune about an accord, coalition, in a flash.

 

I am sure there is no such pact. The Liberals and Conservatives, as close as they may be in policy at times are sworn enemies.

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

The Liberals may be somewhat to the right but their supporters overwhelmingly want Harper out. This is very obvious to Trudeau and if he has any doubts his advisors and the pollsters will explain this to him in the days following an election. It is clear that Mulcair has already been read, or has seen for himself, the facts of life.

I really do not think the NDP will have many more seats than the Liberals. It is more likely that the two parties will  be fairly close to each other with one having perhaps 20-30 or less seats more than the other. If either party were so badly damaged that the other had a lot more seats, the bigger party would have achieved at least a plurality in the House. This is mathematically clear in all scenarios except one in which another party grabs a significant number of seats (the BQ and Greens able to get over twenty seats between them) or the Conservatives get up to 38-39%, a level they have not seen in years and is not guranteed to give them a majority.