2019 Seat Projections: Liberals supported by NDP could form Minority Government

NorthReport wrote:

L - 149 Seats

C - 147 Seats

N - 23 Seats

B - 12 Seats

G - 6 Seats

 

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-latest-338canada-projection-so-long-tory-lead/

The Parti Bernier has only been taking about 1% of the vote in the national polls.  How do the pollsters figure it has a shot of ending up with a late Sixties/early Seventies Creditiste-sized caucus?  

Ken Burch wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

L - 149 Seats

C - 147 Seats

N - 23 Seats

B - 12 Seats

G - 6 Seats

 

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-latest-338canada-projection-so-long-tory-lead/

The Parti Bernier has only been taking about 1% of the vote in the national polls.  How do the pollsters figure it has a shot of ending up with a late Sixties/early Seventies Creditiste-sized caucus?  

That's the Bloc

I think the NDP would lose a lot of their remaining support if they helped the Conservatives.

Working with the Liberals is the best way for the NDP to make a difference, as they did in the Liberal Minorities of Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin.

The Conservatives ruled like they had a majority when Harper had a minority. The NDP voted with them on many bills including the criminal code amendments that were later struck down for breaching the Charter. I was active during the minority Parliament years with Svend and then Bill and we were on election alert for years it seemed. Elections in 2004 and 2006 and 2008 and then in 2011 led to all parties but the NDP especially having to compromise because they couldn't defeat the government because of finances and voter fatigue from constant elections, especially when you add in the provincial and municipal elections in those years.

Latest seat projection by 338Canada

Liberal 152

Conservative 146

NDP 22

BQ 12

Greens 6

https://blog.338canada.com/2019/08/338canada-federal-update-august-4th.html

Left Turn wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

If I'm correct, if the conservatives get the most seats, they'll have first dibs at forming government.

The choice of who gets first dibs at forming a government is decided by the Governor General (GG), based on who can make the most convincing case to the GG that they can gain the confidence of the house. Note: This does not have to be the party with the most seats in the house, or whatever the talking heads may decide is the historical precedent.

Also note: There is a precedent that the parties follow when one party wins a majority, which obscures how this actually works in our political system. Then when we get a minority parliament, we get silly season where everybody and their dog thinks the constitution is much more prescriptive of the way forwards than it actually is.

My impression was that, in a minority parliament the party which had formed government up to the election is always offered the first shot at forming a new government, and is expected to turn over the government only if it is unable to win the support of enough minor parties or independents to be able to win the confidence of the house.  This situation most recently played out in B.C., IIRC.

Ken and Debater are constitutionally correct.

i note that May has specifically left open the prospect of the Greens supporting a minority Conservative govrrnment.

the NDP is in some danger of being overtaken by the Greens. 

The best way to circumvent this is to emphasize how unprogressive the Greens are on a variety of issues.

i think Jagmeet might pledge that, unlike the Greens, supporting the Cons is off the table for the NDP.

So maybe May’s thinking is that if she can get enough seats to make a difference, by saying publicly that she would consider forming a coalition with the Conservatives she is forcing the Liberals to take her party seriously and negotiate with them because she would negotiate with the Conservatives unlike the NDP who are too financially unstable to be a relevant negotiator.

Pondering wrote:

I don't believe the Green numbers are real. That is, people are parking their votes there until the actual election at which point most will decide between the major parties. 

Aren’t the “major parties” namely the Liberals and Conservatives?

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't believe the Green numbers are real. That is, people are parking their votes there until the actual election at which point most will decide between the major parties. 

Aren’t the “major parties” namely the Liberals and Conservatives?

Don't you count the NDP? They have frequently held the balance of power in parliament. They almost won the 2015 election. At least they hit first place though not for long. 

There will be no coalition federally. No matter whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals who get the most seats they will govern alone. Candians expect that federally our politicians will play the hand we deal them, not throw the cards in and demand a redeal.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There will be no coalition federally. No matter whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals who get the most seats they will govern alone. Candians expect that federally our politicians will play the hand we deal them, not throw the cards in and demand a redeal.

The 2008 coalition debacle only proved that the Conservatives and the media were able to turn 2008 Canadians against the specific coalition in question -- Namely, one which included "socialists", was backed by "seperatists", and excluded the largest party in parliament. It didn't prove that Canadians are opposed to coalitions under any circumstances. Under the right circumstances, I think Canadians could be convinced to support a coalition. Whether any federal parties would be willing to form one after the 2008 coalition debacle is another matter entirely.

I'll also point out that there are non-coalition options that don't involve the government playing a game of "chicken" with the possibility of an election, every time they present a piece of legislation involving confidence matters, as Harper did from 2006-2011. A "deal" like what the B.C. NDP and B.C. Greens reached in B.C., where a minor party agreees to back the government's budgets, is a perfectly workable solution that I believe Canadians would accept at the federal level.

brookmere wrote:

Left Turn wrote:

A "deal" like what the B.C. NDP and B.C. Greens reached in B.C., where a minor party agreees to back the government's budgets, is a perfectly workable solution that I believe Canadians would accept at the federal level.

Keep in mind that deal was necessary for the NDP to form government, as they had won fewer seats than the BC Liberals. Would the federal Liberals make such a deal with the NDP or Greens in similar circumstances? Or would they let Scheer take office and try to turn him into the next Joe Clark?

If the Liberals win the most seats but fall short of a majority, I would expect them to form a minority government without any deals. Harper managed it and I think the Liberals would have an easier time, for starters the NDP will be looking for a new leader and won't be in any shape for another election soon.

I think you're right about the case where the Liberals get the most seats, but not a majority. They will form a government and dare the smaller parties to vote no confidence.

However, if they get fewer seats than the Cons, but enough that they could pass a budget with NDP (and perhaps Green) support, I suspect they would try to make a deal for this to happen rather than letting the Cons form a government and hope that it is short lived . Remember that the Liberals consider themselves the natural governing party, and they hate to be in opposition because they can't give out goodies to their supporters from opposition.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

There will be no coalition federally. No matter whether it is the Conservatives or the Liberals who get the most seats they will govern alone. Candians expect that federally our politicians will play the hand we deal them, not throw the cards in and demand a redeal.

At most, there would be something like the arrangement PET and David Lewis worked out after the 1972 election, when the Liberals beat the PC's by only two seats and the NDP had the clear balance of power with 31.  It wasn't a formal coalition-then and now, the Liberals would never do anything which legitimized the NDP as even a potential party of government-but it was an agreement on a clearly left-of-center legislative program.  This agreement is the reason Canada has single-payer healthcare, lest anyone forget.

There was no good reason for David Lewis to sabotage the situation and guarantee his party heavy losses in the seat count by forcing an election only a year and a half later.  

My own theory is that, since he'd been diagnosed with terminal leukemia in 1973 or so, Lewis was bound and determined to make sure whoever his successor was would not get to take over while the party had that kind of strength and influence.   If that meant costing his party half its seats and losing his own, so be it.

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't believe the Green numbers are real. That is, people are parking their votes there until the actual election at which point most will decide between the major parties. 

Aren’t the “major parties” namely the Liberals and Conservatives?

Don't you count the NDP? They have frequently held the balance of power in parliament. They almost won the 2015 election. At least they hit first place though not for long. 

I only count the Liberals and Conservatives because I think they’re the only parties that have a good chance at winning over 100 seats and forming government. I think FPTP also marginalizes the NDP as it almost always underrepresents their national level of support. It also marginalizes the Greens. There could be a huge amount of wasted votes in this election with both the Greens and NDP getting many votes spread evenly across the country but not enough to win many seats. With the recent increase in popularity of the Green Party, I think it’s now possible that the Liberals or Conservatives could win a phoney FPTP “majority” with just 1/3rd of the vote or even less. 

Ken, your theory is very ungenerous towards David Lewis who dedicated his life to his party. What evidence do you have that he could be so petty?

besides, he died in ‘81. It is doubtful that he could have survived 8 years with terminal leukaemia.

and Bookmere, I think it is entirely possible for one party to get a majority with 33% of the vote.

Joe Clark got a plurality with only 35.5 in a less fractured political setting.

today we have six parties that could win significant votes. The Bloc, the Greens, the NDP and Bernier  might only win 25 or 30 seats between them but with a huge wasted vote of perhaps 30%. The distortions of FPTP could well deliver a majority to the Cons or Libs on this divided political landscape.

Quote:

At most, there would be something like the arrangement PET and David Lewis worked out after the 1972 election, when the Liberals beat the PC's by only two seats and the NDP had the clear balance of power with 31.  It wasn't a formal coalition-then and now, the Liberals would never do anything which legitimized the NDP as even a potential party of government-but it was an agreement on a The clearly left-of-center legislative program.  This agreement is the reason Canada has single-payer healthcare, lest anyone forget.

Agreed that the 1972 agreement was not a formal coalition. That said, it was also not the game of chicken that Harper played between 2006-2011. As far as I know, Harper never consulted any of the opposition parties on any of the bills that he put before parliament when he had a minority -- all of which he decided to make confidence motions, even those that did not need to be under the constitution -- he simply put forward the bills he wanted and dared the opposition to defeat his government. IMO, this was completely and utterly immoral.