Ontario Minority Scenarios

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day
Ontario Minority Scenarios

Jack Layton had a "scenarios committee" in 2006 and 2008 (and 2011?), Brian Topp has written.

Rabble must have posters who can strategize almost as well as Brian Topp. At least in their own minds.

Go.

Regions: 
Wilf Day

Remember 1985 in Ontario when Frank Miller lost his bid to win a majority.  

Who won? We found out only 26 days later when the Liberal-NDP Accord was signed. Those who had written "Miller wins minority" were wrong.

Compare the Times of London headline May 7, 2010: “Britain wakes up to a hung Parliament.” No instant winner.

My wish for 2014: no race to call a winner in an election no one party wins.

Frank Miller's PCs won four more seats than the Liberals in 1985, and then lost the bidding for NDP support. During negotiations for the Liberal-NDP Accord, the PCs did make offers. Not good enough ones. 

The crown "summons" no one if there is an incumbent. The incumbent either meets the House or resigns. If he resigns after an election or after losing the first confidence vote (as happened in Ontario in 1985), then the crown asks the leader of the Opposition (the leader of the largest opposition party) to form a new cabinet. As spelled out long ago by Eugene Forsey.

So Miller promptly met the House like a good democrat, lost the confidence vote, and promptly resigned.

Compare what McGuinty did in 2011.  

After the 2011 election Andrea Horwath offered to meet Dalton McGuinty to discuss all the options. He refused. One seat short, he was shopping around to open a by-election, which he eventually did. When he called the legislature into session, he adjourned it without setting up legislature committees, not wanting them to have opposition majorities. Not until February 29, 2012, did he allow the committees to meet, after failure in his early attempts to buy a seat. Elizabeth Witmer held out for better terms until April 27, 2012.

McGuinty was not interested in any coalition or accord. He expected to pick up Witmer's seat on September 6, 2012. His failure doomed his career.

After this election, Wynne will not repeat his mistake.

mark_alfred

There's an article in the Star by Walkom that various Libs on Twitter have jumped upon. 

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:

Jack Layton had a "scenarios committee" in 2006 and 2008 (and 2011?), Brian Topp has written.

Rabble must have posters who can strategize almost as well as Brian Topp. At least in their own minds.

Go.

There are 6 minority scenarios (in alphabetical order):

A) 1. Lib, 2. NDP, 3. PC
B) 1. Lib, 2. PC, 3. NDP
C) 1. NDP, 2. Lib, 3. PC
D) 1. NDP, 2. PC, 3. Lib
E) 1. PC, 2. Lib, 3. NDP
F) 1. PC, 2. NDP, 3. Lib

I think the first place party would govern in 5 of these scenarios, A, B, C, D, and, F. I think the only scenario where the first place party might not be able to form a government is "scenario E", the same one that produced a Liberal government in Ontario in 1985.

"Scenario E" [1. PC, 2. Lib, 3. NDP] seems to be the most unstable because the Liberals have stated they have not closed the door on a coalition with a 3rd place NDP and the NDP has not closed the door on a coalition with another party. The NDP and Liberal platforms also seem like they could be amalgamated together while it seems very hard to see how the PC's hard-right platform could be supported by either the NDP or Liberals.

Harper's Conservatives took office in 2006 under a scenario similar to "scenario E". But Harper's Conservative's were smart to propose a modest platform that wasn't very different from Martin's Liberals. So in 2006 people were not questioning whether the LPC would support the CPC forming a government if the CPC won the most seats. The Ontario PC Party may have committed a huge blunder when it proposed a hard-right platform. Why they didn't hide their agenda during this election is a bit of a mystery to me. If they were running under a bland non-descript rightist platform they would likely not be facing the possibility of being denied power under "scenario E."

If the OLP refused to support a PC minority government's throne speech, the ONDP would almost be forced to support some kind of deal with the OLP to keep the OLP in government because supporting an OPC government would have a very negative impact on the ONDP's popularity right before another possible election. So the ONDP's decision in such a situation would depend on the OLP's actions.

Doug

It's also a big mystery to me. With a moderate conservative platform we wouldn't be having this discussion at all since Tim Hudak would be sailing effortlessly toward a majority.

mark_alfred

JKR wrote:

Harper's Conservatives took office in 2006 under a scenario similar to "scenario E". But Harper's Conservative's were smart to propose a modest platform that wasn't very different from Martin's Liberals. So in 2006 people were not questioning whether the LPC would support the CPC forming a government if the CPC won the most seats.

But back in 2006, I believe it was:

1. Cons  2. Libs  3. PQ  4. NDP.  The NDP and the Libs did not, I believe, have enough seats amongst them to form a coalition to overtake the Cons.  The complication here was that the sovereigntist PQ needed to be included.

mark_alfred

Doug wrote:

It's also a big mystery to me. With a moderate conservative platform we wouldn't be having this discussion at all since Tim Hudak would be sailing effortlessly toward a majority.

Unless they had their own gang of 34 come out decrying their movement away from an appearance of pure right principles.

josh

mark_alfred wrote:

There's an article in the Star by Walkom that various Libs on Twitter have jumped upon. 

Think Walkom jumped the rails a bit again. If they did that, the party would probably break apart. At the very least, they would never live it down.

mark_alfred

Wilf Day wrote:

So Miller promptly met the House like a good democrat, lost the confidence vote, and promptly resigned.

Compare what McGuinty did in 2011.  

After the 2011 election Andrea Horwath offered to meet Dalton McGuinty to discuss all the options. He refused. One seat short, he was shopping around to open a by-election, which he eventually did. When he called the legislature into session, he adjourned it without setting up legislature committees, not wanting them to have opposition majorities. Not until February 29, 2012, did he allow the committees to meet, after failure in his early attempts to buy a seat. Elizabeth Witmer held out for better terms until April 27, 2012.

McGuinty was not interested in any coalition or accord. He expected to pick up Witmer's seat on September 6, 2012. His failure doomed his career.

After this election, Wynne will not repeat his mistake.

Thanks, that was interesting.  It confirms even further that McGuinty was as much a player as Harper when it came to avoiding the House and delaying.  In the case of Harper, it paid off.  For McGuinty, it backfired.

One article I found suggests that Wynne also had a chance with Horwath to secure things in a coalition, but did not pursue this.  link

Wilf Day

JKR wrote:
If the OLP refused to support a PC minority government's throne speech, the ONDP would almost be forced to support some kind of deal with the OLP to keep the OLP in government because supporting an OPC government would have a very negative impact on the ONDP's popularity right before another possible election. So the ONDP's decision in such a situation would depend on the OLP's actions.

But Hudak would not even get to write a throne speech unless Wynne resigned. If Wynne resigned as Premier, she would almost certainly resign as leader too -- Dion's mistake in 2008 -- and the Liberals would abstain on Hudak's throne speech, having no leader.

So any Liberal/NDP discussion has to take place the morning after the election. If not late election night. 

mark_alfred wrote:

One article I found suggests that Wynne also had a chance with Horwath to secure things in a coalition, but did not pursue this. link

There was a hopeful theory that, upon winning the leadership, Wynne would phone Andrea and say "let's talk about all possible options." It will be years before we find out whether that happened, I expect.

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

JKR wrote:

Harper's Conservatives took office in 2006 under a scenario similar to "scenario E". But Harper's Conservative's were smart to propose a modest platform that wasn't very different from Martin's Liberals. So in 2006 people were not questioning whether the LPC would support the CPC forming a government if the CPC won the most seats.

But back in 2006, I believe it was:

1. Cons  2. Libs  3. PQ  4. NDP.  The NDP and the Libs did not, I believe, have enough seats amongst them to form a coalition to overtake the Cons.  The complication here was that the sovereigntist PQ needed to be included.

Good point. The PQ was ahead of the NDP. But the Liberals and NDP had more seats than the Conservatives. So a coalition in 2006 did not require the PQ to be included. It just required the PQ to abstain or provide partial support toward a Liberal-NDP coalition. The standings after the 2006 election were:

CPC: 124 seats
LPC: 103 seats
PQ: 51 seats
NDP: 29 seats
Ind: 1 seat

The Liberals and NDP had 132 seats to the Conservatives 103 so the Liberals and NDP could have established a coalition or some other kind of agreement without the need for the PQ`s participation within the agreement.

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:
JKR wrote:
If the OLP refused to support a PC minority government's throne speech, the ONDP would almost be forced to support some kind of deal with the OLP to keep the OLP in government because supporting an OPC government would have a very negative impact on the ONDP's popularity right before another possible election. So the ONDP's decision in such a situation would depend on the OLP's actions.

But Hudak would not even get to write a throne speech unless Wynne resigned. If Wynne resigned as Premier, she would almost certainly resign as leader too -- Dion's mistake in 2008 -- and the Liberals would abstain on Hudak's throne speech, having no leader.

So any Liberal/NDP discussion has to take place the morning after the election. If not late election night.

Good point. If the OPCP win the most seats but fail to get a majority and the OLP comes in second place, Wynne will have the advantage of being Premier. On election night or the morning after Wynne could easily say that she will introduce a throne speech based on her previous budget and see if she has the confidence of the legislature. I think Horwath and the ONDP would then likely negotiate with the OLP and come to some kind of agreement. The ONDP could also negotiate with the OPCP but I see those negotiations as having very little chance of going anywhere. It might also make sense for the ONDP to offer to negotiate with both the OPCP and OLP in order to maintain the semblance that they are acting impartially.

Wilf Day

JKR wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:
JKR wrote:
If the OLP refused to support a PC minority government's throne speech, the ONDP would almost be forced to support some kind of deal with the OLP to keep the OLP in government because supporting an OPC government would have a very negative impact on the ONDP's popularity right before another possible election. So the ONDP's decision in such a situation would depend on the OLP's actions.

But Hudak would not even get to write a throne speech unless Wynne resigned. If Wynne resigned as Premier, she would almost certainly resign as leader too -- Dion's mistake in 2008 -- and the Liberals would abstain on Hudak's throne speech, having no leader.

So any Liberal/NDP discussion has to take place the morning after the election. If not late election night.

Good point. If the OPCP win the most seats but fail to get a majority and the OLP comes in second place, Wynne will have the advantage of being Premier. On election night or the morning after Wynne could easily say that she will introduce a throne speech based on her previous budget and see if she has the confidence of the legislature. I think Horwath and the ONDP would then likely negotiate with the OLP and come to some kind of agreement. The ONDP could also negotiate with the OPCP but I see those negotiations as having very little chance of going anywhere. It might also make sense for the ONDP to offer to negotiate with both the OPCP and OLP in order to maintain the semblance that they are acting impartially.

If I recall correctly, the fact that the PCs were also bidding for Rae's support in 1985 was not made public until some time later. They were understandably gun-shy about their long-shot bid, which many PCs would have opposed, and Rae would have had the identical concern.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Let's keep in mind it is relatively common  for no party to win a majority  of seats in   Canadian or Ontario elections, certain conventions come into play, and different "arrangments" may be made.

------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_government

Canada Main article: Federal minority governments in Canada

During the history of Canadian politics there have been twelve minority governments on the federal level, in eleven separate minority parliaments (there were two minority governments during the life of 15th Parliament). One of these minorities, the 14th Parliament, was only a minority for half of its duration owing to floor-crossings and by-elections. The tenth and eleventh were elected twice in Canadian federal elections of 2005/2006 and again in the 2008 election. There have also been numerous minority governments in provincial legislatures, particularly in provinces such as Ontario where there are strong third parties.

At the federal level, the party which has won the most seats in a general election has formed the government in all but the 15th Parliament.[3] There have also been instances of parties which did not win a plurality forming the government at the provincial level (notably under David Peterson). For information about minority governments at both the federal and provincial levels see Minority governments in Canada.

--------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_government

Coalitions and alliances

To deal with situations where no clear majorities appear, parties either form coalition governments, alliances or agreements with other parties to stay in office.

A common situation is governance with "jumping majorities", i.e. that the cabinet stays as long as it can negotiate support from the parliament—majorities which well may be differently formed from issue to issue, from bill to bill.

An alternative arrangement is a looser alliance of parties, exemplified with Sweden. There the long governing Social Democrats have governed with more or less formal support from other parties: in the mid-20th century from Agrarians, after 1968 from Communists, and more recently from Greens and ex-Communists, and have thus been able to retain executive power and (in practice) legislative initiative. This is also common in Canada, where nine elections from 1921 to 2005 effectively produced minority federal governments: the parties can rarely cooperate enough to form a coalition, but will have loose agreements instead.

Occasionally a confidence and supply agreement may be formed. This is more formal pact which still falls short of creating a coalition government. In the Canadian province of Ontario, the Liberal Party formed a minority government from 1985 to 1987 on the basis of a formal accord with the New Democratic Party (NDP): the NDP agreed to support the Liberals for two years on all confidence motions and budgetary legislation, in exchange for the passage of certain legislative measures proposed by the NDP. This was not a coalition government, as the NDP remained an opposition party and was not given seats in the cabinet. In this case the Liberals did not even have a plurality of seats: they had 48 and the NDP had 25, but the Progressive Conservatives were the largest party with 52.

-------------------

Convention says if no party wins a majority of seats in the Ontario election,  the Liberals, even without a plurality,  still govern until  they  face the House/ The question is can they surviie a no-confidence vote, say around a Speech from the Throne,IF they survive the first non-confdience test, can they survire other non-confidence votes?

Other convention say if  Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluarltiy of saets without a majority,   they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt  and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing.  Following that convention, election night  Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of pwoer.

 

Winston

And what would happen if the seats split 3 ways with the Liberals in a close third? Say, 40 PC / 34 NDP / 33 Lib? Unless she resigned or lost confidence, she could try to remain premier. If she lost confidence, there would have to be a really compelling case for the L-G not to ask Hudak to form a government. A signed accord could put Andrea in the premier's chair bu,t knowing the Liberals, it is highly doubtful they'd allow it. 

Debater

A Minority has always been the most likely outcome of this election.

Most seat projection sites are projecting a Liberal minority right now, but if that doesn't hold up over the next week, a Conservative minority is the next most likely outcome.

Debater

JKR wrote:

The Ontario PC Party may have committed a huge blunder when it proposed a hard-right platform. Why they didn't hide their agenda during this election is a bit of a mystery to me. If they were running under a bland non-descript rightist platform they would likely not be facing the possibility of being denied power under "scenario E."

True.  Tim Hudak is giving the other parties the opportunities to remind voters that he was in the Harris Government and that he would be Mike Harris, Vol. 2.  He admitted in his first week that he wants to slash 100,000 public servant jobs and The Globe & Mail has revealed he travelled to the U.S. to craft his platform with Republicans.

Hudak is not from the same PC cloth as Bill Davis or John Tory, and may be even more right-wing than Stephen Harper.

John Ivison suggested on Power & Politics that Hudak should have hidden some of the details of his platform!  Ivison, a Conservative journalist, is rooting for a Hudak win and seemed visibly disappointed that Hudak may have revealed his true self to Ontarians.

Rokossovsky

Debater wrote:

JKR wrote:

The Ontario PC Party may have committed a huge blunder when it proposed a hard-right platform. Why they didn't hide their agenda during this election is a bit of a mystery to me. If they were running under a bland non-descript rightist platform they would likely not be facing the possibility of being denied power under "scenario E."

True.  Tim Hudak is giving the other parties the opportunities to remind voters that he was in the Harris Government and that he would be Mike Harris, Vol. 2.  He admitted in his first week that he wants to slash 100,000 public servant jobs and The Globe & Mail has revealed he travelled to the U.S. to craft his platform with Republicans.

Hudak is not from the same PC cloth as Bill Davis or John Tory, and may be even more right-wing than Stephen Harper.

John Ivison suggested on Power & Politics that Hudak should have hidden some of the details of his platform!  Ivison, a Conservative journalist, is rooting for a Hudak win and seemed visibly disappointed that Hudak may have revealed his true self to Ontarians.

The money people behind the PC party don't actually care if the Conservatives get elected. As long as he gives the Liberals a lot of room to manouver on the right, and "get the job done", they don't really care, since they back both parties.

Debater

And they're increasingly backing the NDP at the Federal level - remember the discussion here in 2012 about Mulcair's Bay Street contributors during the NDP leadership?  

Mulcair is moving the NDP to the 'center' and since Mulcair was a provincial Liberal until a few years back and served under a former Federal Tory, I don't think he's too bothered about it.  Mulcair knows that he has to reach out to Bay Street, and Ian Capstick basically acknowledged last year that this is a reality that all parties face.

Rokossovsky

Which doesn't actually say anything relevant to the point I just made about Hudak's agenda. It has little or nothing to do with electability, and everything to do with keeping the political terrain as far right as possible.

That in turn, gives the Liberals plenty of room to play the strategic voting card, come up the middle, and then implement neo-liberal austerity, with a human face.

Debater

NDP governments in Nova Scotia & Ontario both had to confront political realities once they got into office, and both were viewed as having moved 'right'.  Look at Darrell Dexter in Nova Scotia - he was viewed as betraying NDP values during his term as Premier so his first term was his last.

Rae was also accused by the unions, teachers & NDP voters as having betrayed their values with his social contract and Rae Days, and so they voted him out and replaced him with Mike Harris.

Why do you think Mulcair is desperate to move to the center and make clear that he will be fiscally responsible and not socialist and will not raise taxes?  Because in order to govern in Canada you have to do so from the center.  You can accuse all these people of being right-wing and keep repeating the narrative that Liberals campaign on the left & govern from the right, but it's not really true.  They govern from the center.

Rokossovsky

I have no illusions about how "right-wing" the NDP are and have not had any for a long time. Personally, I don't think the NDP has been really a left-wing party since the 70s. That is what it is.

I see nothing to really distinguish the Horwath ONDP from the Bob Rae ONDP, except possibly she is slightly to the left in the margins. The main difference, is that this ONDP has dropped core socialist views, such as nationalized auto-insurance up front. That doesn't mean they don't have wiggle room to implement some real "social democratic" reforms, which may help, such as raising corporate income tax.

Those who are looking for a vehicle to articulate a real "socialist" agenda would be better off looking at building alternatives, and working in the public sphere to move public opinion, and influence policy in civic society.

The biggest mistake of the ONDP of the past was proposing policies that they either could not, or did not have the guts to put into place. Horwath seems to be avoiding all that by taking Liberal budget estimates with a grain of salt and proposing very limited reform.

There is no telling what is really achievable, until someone other than the Liberals can look at the detailed accounting, and my fear is that they are covering up for a lot of losses, and that even if there is an ONDP government in power, they will have to greatly curtail even the very modest proposals that are putting forward.

If they can cauterize the wound, that is a good start.

Rokossovsky

Oh, and I'd really like the Attorney General and the Auditor General to have a free hand in picking through the Liberal carcass. Perhaps some arrests will be made.

That would be sweet.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Winston wrote:

And what would happen if the seats split 3 ways with the Liberals in a close third? Say, 40 PC / 34 NDP / 33 Lib? Unless she resigned or lost confidence, she could try to remain premier. If she lost confidence, there would have to be a really compelling case for the L-G not to ask Hudak to form a government. A signed accord could put Andrea in the premier's chair bu,t knowing the Liberals, it is highly doubtful they'd allow it. 

 

My take on that type of scenario- PCs have plurality but no majority  say around 40 seats to NDP ? Libs ?. Green >

Wyne could try to claim the right to govern and face the house on a confidence vote at a time of her choosing..The claim would be somewht shaky, unless there was a clear indicaion Wynne had the confidence of the majority of elected MLAs, and would proably need a clear deal with the NDP to pull it off.   A party got reduced from a majority to a plurality in one election,, got a new leader/slash premier, who requests another election  to get a mandate-,  loses seats,not only fails to get a majorioty, fails to get  a plurality hard to see her remainign in power long.   Howver. my sense is unless a clear majority of elected MPPS expressed confidence in aother leader, Wynne would get a chance to face the  Leg .

 An interesting point  to keep in mind is that, contrary to what Judy Rebick,Gerald Caplan and others may  say, they weret not ang4y with Andrea horwath and the NDP for voting agaisnt  the budget, becau3e Andrea Horwath and the NDP did not vote agaunst the budget. The NDP  did say   they  would vote against the budget because they, after propping up the scandal ridden Lib government for 2 years primarily over "concessions"  in  budgets,  felt the government  had not delviered on the "concessions.  They said no longer had confidence in the goverment. and would vote against this budget becaue they didn;t trust Wynne  to delvier.

Some within the NDP say this was somewhat  of a  bargaining ploy on our part.  There ws an opening  for the  faint possiblity Wynne woudl negotiate,  try to work with the NDP, offer more concessions,maybe even a wrttten guarantee the promises would be kept, maybe even cabinet seats? Accord, coalition type arrangment?? ,

 However,this wa not to be.  Wynne made no attempt to negotiate , She  announcdd the election was on, the campaign buss srarted running,and a few dsys later she visted the Left G  to rquest a writ.Not vote on the udget. . Preumably she, the unlected Premeir, leader of a minority goverment with strong expressions of a lack of confidence in her bu the majority of the LEg, , requested permission for an election to seek a mandate to govern,  If she fails to get a majorty, loses seats, fails to get even  a plurality  its hard to see her staying  in power much past election day.

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

NDP governments in Nova Scotia & Ontario both had to confront political realities once they got into office, and both were viewed as having moved 'right'.  Look at Darrell Dexter in Nova Scotia - he was viewed as betraying NDP values during his term as Premier so his first term was his last.

Rae was also accused by the unions, teachers & NDP voters as having betrayed their values with his social contract and Rae Days, and so they voted him out and replaced him with Mike Harris.

Why do you think Mulcair is desperate to move to the center and make clear that he will be fiscally responsible and not socialist and will not raise taxes?  Because in order to govern in Canada you have to do so from the center.  You can accuse all these people of being right-wing and keep repeating the narrative that Liberals campaign on the left & govern from the right, but it's not really true.  They govern from the center.

Austerity budgets are never "from the center".  All austerity is right-winng...which is why any intellectually honest person would acknowledge that, on every major issue, the Chretien and Martin Liberals were to the right of the Mulroney government.

And an insistence that taxes on the rich can never be raised isn't centrist, either:  It's right-wing corporate propaganda.

The Liberals didn't have to cut for thirteen years BEFORE they could propose a national childcare program...and they didn't have to fund a tax cut for the megarich by cutting the provincial transfer payments which keep the healthcare program going.

All you did with that post, Debater, was to remind people reading this thread why it's absurd for progressives to vote Liberal.

Wilf Day

peterjcassidy wrote:
Other convention say if Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluarltiy of saets without a majority, they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing. Following that convention, election night Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of power.

As far as I know, there is no such "other convention." Link?

Debater wrote:
Most seat projection sites are projecting a Liberal minority right now, but if that doesn't hold up over the next week, a Conservative minority is the next most likely outcome.

There are no such outcomes. The outcome you refer to is a Minority Legislature. Whether the Liberals or the PCs have a plurality is not determinative.

peterjcassidy wrote:

My take on that type of scenario- PCs have plurality but no majority say around 40 seats to NDP ? Libs ?. Green >

Wynne could try to claim the right to govern and face the house on a confidence vote at a time of her choosing. The claim would be somewhat shaky, unless there was a clear indication Wynne had the confidence of the majority of elected MLAs, and would probably need a clear deal with the NDP to pull it off.

Whether it is shaky would be determined on the first vote in the new legislature.

The question I pose is this: what will happen on election night? Will Wynne and Horwath be able to change gears fast enough, if necessary?

 

Caissa

Does anything significant have to happen on election night, Wilf?

terrytowel

Hudak says he has no interest in forming a coalition or look for support from either party. Horwath says she is not going to prop up a corrupt Liberal government again, and she won't support a PC government that would cut 100,000 jobs. That leaves Wynne who says she would make a minority government work. 

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
What would it take for a coalition between the NDP and the Cons?  Hmm, this one I cannot see even a possibility.  They're just too different.

Inquiry into the gas plant fiasco maybe?

Ciabatta2

The NDP would be more than willing to work with the PCs but there isn't enough common ground to sustain more than a few isolated compromise initiatives between the two.

If the Liberals win a minority the NDP will prop the Liberals up, no doubt about it. Whether the "deal" is the same as the one before the election, I'm not too sure. Would probably have to include some sort of gas plant cover for both parties, like Aristotle has suggested. And whether it's vote-by-vote or some sort of longer-term arrangement I'm not sure.

It is the scenario that many party faithful and even some Liberals salivate over. The NDP does not have the finances to go to an election again. Both the NDP and Liberals will lose badly if there is another election in a year.

All this talk is positioning for the vote. After the vote, everything changes and becomes about the people have spoken and now its our turn to get results for people etc etc.

mark_alfred

What would it take for a coalition between the NDP and Libs?  If the Libs agreed to raise the corporate tax by 1% and remove the various references to privatiztion within their budget (IE, declarations of divesting assets and "exploring opportunities" to divest assets), and removing or readjusting the HST as it applies to hydro, then maybe.

What would it take for a coalition between the Libs and Cons?  If the Libs removed the small income tax increase on the wealthy that they've proposed, and agreed to a bit of a cut in the corporate tax rate rather than a freeze, and agreed to move quicker on privatizing and selling off assets than they've proposed within the budget already (and thus agreeing to assess a reduction in the public service through this privatization), then maybe.

What would it take for a coalition between the NDP and the Cons?  Hmm, this one I cannot see even a possibility.  They're just too different.

Wilf Day

Caissa wrote:

Does anything significant have to happen on election night, Wilf?

Yes. Wynne has to backtrack, and not resign as leader and Premier just because she gets one seat less than Hudak.

For some weird reason, she has just said she would. Idiotic.

Quote:
In Vaughan this morning, Kathleen Wynne said that if Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives win a plurality of seats in a minority legislature, she’ll let them govern rather than try to team up with Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats to hold on to government. . . .

Unless Ms. Wynne adds a qualifier at some point, or is simply saying whatever she thinks she needs to say on the campaign trail without meaning it, those voices within her party appear to have lost out before the debate over what to do in such a situation ever really started.

Is Radwanski quoting her correctly? Robert Benzie says the same thing:

Quote:
Wynne hit the ground running Wednesday morning with a raucous rally in Vaughan . . . “Whoever wins the most seats in this election has the right to form government,” she said.

Just in case anyone doubts how the Parliamentary system works, here's the position on the House of Commons website:

Quote:
If no party gets a clear majority, the cabinet that was in office before and during the election has two choices. It can resign, in which case the Governor General or lieutenant-governor will call on the leader of the largest opposition party to form a cabinet. Or the cabinet already in office can choose to stay in office and meet the newly elected House — which, however, it must do promptly. In either case, it is the people’s representatives in the newly elected House who will decide whether the “minority” government (one whose own party has fewer than half the seats) shall stay in office or be thrown out.

So what is Wynne playing at? 

josh

One suggestion is that she's trying to draw NDP votes by ruling out a 1985 type arrangement.

Wilf Day

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Both the NDP and Liberals will lose badly if there is another election in a year.

Especially if it is held on the new federal riding boundaries, which give the Conservatives at least eight more safe seats: King-Vaughan, Aurora--Oak Ridges--Richmond Hill, Barrie--Innisfil, Milton, Kitchener South--Hespeler, Flamborough--Glanbrook, Rideau--Carleton, Hastings--Lennox & Addington.

One of the first things a new government must do is deal with new boundaries reflecting the 2011 census. Hudak will simply adopt the federal boundaries, ignoring the screams from Northern Ontario as they lose a seat. What would Wynne do? 

Wilf Day

josh wrote:
One suggestion is that she's trying to draw NDP votes by ruling out a 1985 type arrangement.

In which case, she doesn't really mean it, and will have to become a bit more ambiguous, so as not to paint herself into a corner.

This is why I started this thread.

NorthReport

Let's have a babble honourary award for the most outrageous comment of the day by a leader until Jun 12.

Today's award goes to Kathleen Wynne.

And thank you Wilf for this thread. 

Link Laughing

Wilf Day wrote:

josh wrote:
One suggestion is that she's trying to draw NDP votes by ruling out a 1985 type arrangement.

In which case, she doesn't really mean it, and will have to become a bit more ambiguous, so as not to paint herself into a corner.

This is why I started this thread.

mark_alfred

Pure stupidity on Wynne's part. 

Rokossovsky

Is that whining I hear? I am sure that sounds like whining? Did Kathleen Wynne just completely rule out having anything to do with Horwath after the election?

Rokossovsky
Wilf Day

Yet another twist: Wynne will resign as premier but not as leader, ready to move back into the premier's office after the first confidence vote?

Quote:
But asked repeatedly whether she would be willing to team up with the NDP if a minority Tory government is short-lived, Wynne didn't provide a clear answer.

"Hypothetical. Hypothetical. Hypothetical," she said. "We're running for a strong mandate. We're looking for a mandate from the people of Ontario.

If one of the parties forms a minority government, it would have to open parliament with a throne speech — a confidence motion that determines its survival.

If it doesn't pass, the government would fall, triggering another election if no other party can gain the confidence of the legislature.

Wilf Day

Here's the strangest scenario: the Tasmanian state election of 2010.

In the previous legislature, the Greens had held the balance of power, but in the 2010 election both Labor (the government) and the (right-wing) Liberal opposition refused in advance to deal with the Greens if they held the balance of power again.

So both leaders stupidly agreed that, if there was a tie in seats (as polls showed was very possible), the government would be formed by the party which had the largest popular vote.

There was a tie. The Liberals had the larger vote.

The incumbent Labor government therefore resigned.

The Lieutenant-Governor, by a decision with written detailed reasons (good idea!), said the Liberal leader was not in a position to form a stable government, refused the resignation, and said he would wait for the House to meet.

The Greens then reached an agreement with the bashful Labor Party.

Apparently Ontario may need such a brave Lieutenant-Governor?

 

NorthReport

Wilf,

Thanks again for starting this minority government topic, which now appears to be the most important aspect of this Ontario election.

Everyone knows Wynne is talking nonsense with her position.

Minority government has become a rather large issue, as our false prophet pollsters, now have to reign themselves in, as the election campaign draws to a close, with less than 1 week left.

Ontario election 2014: Too soon to rule out a coalition

Polls suggest a tight race that may not give any party a majority

 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

This is basically what I said in my post about two conventions come into play if no party gets a majority.

 

Convention says if no party wins a majority of seats in the Ontario election,  the Liberals, even without a plurality,  still govern until  they  face the House/ The question is can they surviie a no-confidence vote, say around a Speech from the Throne,IF they survive the first non-confdience test, can they survire other non-confidence votes?

Other convention say if  Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluarltiy of saets without a majority,   they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt  and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing.  Following that convention, election night  Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of pwoer.

Wilf Day wrote:

Caissa wrote:

Does anything significant have to happen on election night, Wilf?

Yes. Wynne has to backtrack, and not resign as leader and Premier just because she gets one seat less than Hudak.

For some weird reason, she has just said she would. Idiotic.

Quote:
In Vaughan this morning, Kathleen Wynne said that if Tim Hudak’s Progressive Conservatives win a plurality of seats in a minority legislature, she’ll let them govern rather than try to team up with Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats to hold on to government. . . .

Unless Ms. Wynne adds a qualifier at some point, or is simply saying whatever she thinks she needs to say on the campaign trail without meaning it, those voices within her party appear to have lost out before the debate over what to do in such a situation ever really started.

Is Radwanski quoting her correctly? Robert Benzie says the same thing:

Quote:
Wynne hit the ground running Wednesday morning with a raucous rally in Vaughan . . . “Whoever wins the most seats in this election has the right to form government,” she said.

Just in case anyone doubts how the Parliamentary system works, here's the position on the House of Commons website:

Quote:
If no party gets a clear majority, the cabinet that was in office before and during the election has two choices. It can resign, in which case the Governor General or lieutenant-governor will call on the leader of the largest opposition party to form a cabinet. Or the cabinet already in office can choose to stay in office and meet the newly elected House — which, however, it must do promptly. In either case, it is the people’s representatives in the newly elected House who will decide whether the “minority” government (one whose own party has fewer than half the seats) shall stay in office or be thrown out.

So what is Wynne playing at? 

Rokossovsky

All this really says is that Wynne is staking her leadership of the Liberal Party on winning more seats than the Tories. If she doesn't she will likely resign, leaving room for another leader to make peace with the ONDP, should they not decided to back the Tories which they might indeed do, also under another leader.

NorthReport

Order of Preference:

1 - NDP majority

2 - NDP minority with Liberals balance of power

3 - NDP minority with PC balance of power

4 - Liberal minority with NDP balance of power

6 - PC minority with NDP balance of power

7 - Liberal minority with PC balance of power

8 - PC minority with Liberals balance of power

9 - Liberal majority

10 - PC majoriity

 

What happens though in what appears to be the most probable result, a minority government, with the two opposition parties both holding enough seats to hold the balance of power.

Unfortunate likely scenarios:

NDP minority - the NDP will not govern, because the PCs and the govern from the right Liberals would cut them out

Liberal minority -  the govern from-the-right Liberals will team up with the PCs to cut the NDP out

PC minority - the govern from-the-right Liberals will support them, and the NDP would be cut out

The NDP is going to have to win a majority to be a player in the next Legislature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

robbie_dee

peterjcassidy wrote:

This is basically what I said in my post about two conventions come into play if no party gets a majority.

 

Convention says if no party wins a majority of seats in the Ontario election,  the Liberals, even without a plurality,  still govern until  they  face the House/ The question is can they surviie a no-confidence vote, say around a Speech from the Throne,IF they survive the first non-confdience test, can they survire other non-confidence votes?

Other convention say if  Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluarltiy of saets without a majority,   they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt  and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing.  Following that convention, election night  Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of pwoer.

Hi Peter! I think your post is confusing because of a potentially shifting definition of "convention". Your first paragraph correctly describes the constitutional convention. Your second paragraph is confusing because it appears to describe an "other convention" that if an opposition party wins a plurality that the sitting government should stand aside [presumably without first testing the house to see if it can still command a majority] and instead let the plurality party have a "fair shot". There is no such other constitutional convention, it just may be a political reality based on promises made during the campaign or public expectations ("conventional wisdom" perhaps?). I suppose since noone bothered to write these "conventions" down at the time they were established, the contrary "conventional wisdom" could eventually evolve as a new "convention" and indeed replace that prior convention, but I don't think we're there yet.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Liberal minority -  the govern from-the-right Liberals will team up with the PCs to cut the NDP out

For almost 3 years the OLP minority government has survived due to the support of the ONDP. During that time the PC's have been "cut out." I see no indication that this would change if the OLP has another minority government post Sept 12th.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

I think this is an important and fun discussion of what conventon, custom, tradition, usage, law call it what you will,  come into play , in a very possible scenario  - no party gets a majority of seats and the Liberals. who had a majority for 10 years, were reduced to a ninorityin 2011n  lose seats and lose plurality in 2014

Pleae compare  what I said in terms of two, count 'em two  conventions,  to what the the Parliamentary website said in terms of two,  count 'em two  choices

1) the parliamentary wenbsite says

" the cabinet already in office can choose to stay in office and meet the newly elected House — which, however, it must do promptly.", .

my words were:

"Liberals, even without a plurality,  still govern until  they  face the House/ The question is can they surviie a no-confidence vote"

So the parlaimentary website and I  agree the Liberals having no plurality could, by parliamentaqry tradition, convention custom, law, call it what you will, make one choice-  still govern until they face the House which they should do promplty and the question woudl be can they survive a confidence vote..

OR

2, accoring to the parliamentray website

"it can resign, in which case the Governor General or lieutenant-governor will call on the leader of the largest opposition party to form a cabinet"

my words were:

"Other convention say if  Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluraiy of saets without a majority,   they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt[/b]  and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing.  Following that convention, election night  Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of power:"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So the Parliamentary website and I agree if  the Liberals do not get a plurality it would be quite appropriate for Kathleen Wyne to choose to  resign as Premier  and facilitate a transfer of power to the party with a plurality.  Palrliamentary cvnvention custonm, law call it will you will say  the lieutenant -governor wouldl have little choice but to call upon the party with a pluritl, the largest number of seats to form  a cabinert

----------------------

Wynne hit the ground running Wednesday morning with a raucous rally in Vaughan . . . “Whoever wins the most seats in this election has the right to form government,” she said.

The parliamentary website,  Kathleen Wynne.  and I agree if no party gets a majority of seats,even if  the Libeals do not get a plurality, Wynne, and the Liberals  coudl still govern. at leat  until they face tthe house . The Liberals. reduced from a majorty to a minority in 2011  and in 2014  to not even a plurality,  could try to cling to power with a coalition, a dea,l an arrangment iwth other parties ,However there is another choice -  by the weight of tradition and convenion and custom and law  say she should do the right thing resign as Prmier. In which csse the L-g will call upon the party with a plurality form governmnt.

 what happens when  the party with a plurality faces the  House is another discussion.Wink

 

JKR

peterjcassidy wrote:

This is basically what I said in my post about two conventions come into play if no party gets a majority.

Convention says if no party wins a majority of seats in the Ontario election,  the Liberals, even without a plurality,  still govern until  they  face the House/ The question is can they surviie a no-confidence vote, say around a Speech from the Throne,IF they survive the first non-confdience test, can they survire other non-confidence votes?

Other convention say if  Hudak PCs or Horwath NDP win a pluarltiy of saets without a majority,   they should be allowed a fair shot at forming a governmnt  and, so long as they can avoid defeat on a non-confidence matter, be allowed to continue governing.  Following that convention, election night  Wynne would accept defeat and start to facilitate the transfer of pwoer.

I think the political convention you mentioned where Wynne can govern as long as she maintains the confidence of the Legislature clearly takes precedence over the second scenario where she would be expected to defer to the person who leads the party that has the most seats in the Legislature. I think there is only one convention here that is binding on a sitting Premier. I think it's important to remember that technically our parliamentary conventions don't give special recognition to political parties in respect to maintaining the confidence of the Legislature. Wynne is Ontario's premier because she has the confidence of the Legislature not because she leads a certain party. The Legislature could technically choose most adults to be premier, even a person who is not a member of the Legislature or not a leader of a party, or not a member of a political party, to assume the office of premier. 

JKR

Wilf Day wrote:

Yet another twist: Wynne will resign as premier but not as leader, ready to move back into the premier's office after the first confidence vote?

Quote:
But asked repeatedly whether she would be willing to team up with the NDP if a minority Tory government is short-lived, Wynne didn't provide a clear answer.

"Hypothetical. Hypothetical. Hypothetical," she said. "We're running for a strong mandate. We're looking for a mandate from the people of Ontario.

If one of the parties forms a minority government, it would have to open parliament with a throne speech — a confidence motion that determines its survival.

If it doesn't pass, the government would fall, triggering another election if no other party can gain the confidence of the legislature.

This sounds like it might be a smart move by Wynne. If the PC's win a plurality it would hurt the Liberals [and NDP] to be seen denying them the chance to form a government. But the Liberals and NDP could not be faulted for voting against a PC throne speech they could not support on its merits. Once The PC's throne speech failed most Ontarians would not want another election that could once again end in another minority. Most Ontarians would likely be happier if the second and third place parties cooperated in providing stable government. 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

Let's play with this scenario,no party having a majority, Wynne not having a plurality resigns as Premier,   Parliamentary convention, custom, law, call it what you want, the lieutenant -governor would have little choice but to call upon the party with the largest number of seats to form  a cabinet, to form government.. Lets assurme its Tim Hudaks Pcs with the largest number of seats.  The L-g would have little choice in the matter,.  He could not ask Andrea Horwath and the NDP if they would like to have a crack at govnerment or ask Wynne if she would plasee reconsider,  he could not conduct a poll of the MLAs to ask who they would like as Premier. IF IF  Wynne resigns the party with the largest number of seats gets to from govnement. Period, End of Discussion.

It is possible at that point we could see an attempted  replay of 1985, some version of the Liberal NDP accord or som vsarion or the perogie crisis

 

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 a motion of non-confidence six weeks after the federal election on October 14, 2008.

. On December 4, 2008, Governor General Michaëlle Jean (the representative of the Canadian monarch and head 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

Iin my interpreation, IF and when Wynne resigns, the train has left the station, the party with the largest number of seats, Hudaks Pcs in this scenario, form governement and continue a s government until losing a covfidence vote.If they lose a confidenve vote therr is an election.  Or Premier Hudak, doing as Premier Wynne did, could ask the L-G for an election, before facing defeat on a confidence motion.

 

 Basically  any  expession of disatisfation with Hudak as Premer would not change anything- if.elected Liberal and NDP MLAs declare they do not have confidence in Hudak as Premier  and want  some  else as Premier - Wynne, Horwath whomever, tough. ain;t going to happen, Not unless Premier Hudak is defeated in an actual vote in the house, and after that who knows.

So, in this scenario, when and if Wynne not having a plurality resigns, no party having a majority,  the PCs having a plurality,  doesnt matter if every Liberal and NDP MLAs elected say they want someone other than Hudak .as Premier. Hudak becomes Prmier. edn of disucssion.The real test comes when ti comes to a confidence vote.   If Premeri Hudak  is actaully  defeted in a confidence motion that would mean an election UNLESS, the L-G could be persuaded that the majority of MLAs supported someone else as Premier- , as the Lg was persuaded  in 1985. buyt the G_G wa not peeruaded in 2008/9/

 

hope this adds something of worth to  this fun and important discusion

 

JKR wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Yet another twist: Wynne will resign as premier but not as leader, ready to move back into the premier's office after the first confidence vote?

Quote:
But asked repeatedly whether she would be willing to team up with the NDP if a minority Tory government is short-lived, Wynne didn't provide a clear answer.

"Hypothetical. Hypothetical. Hypothetical," she said. "We're running for a strong mandate. We're looking for a mandate from the people of Ontario.

If one of the parties forms a minority government, it would have to open parliament with a throne speech — a confidence motion that determines its survival.

If it doesn't pass, the government would fall, triggering another election if no other party can gain the confidence of the legislature.

This sounds like it might be a smart move by Wynne. If the PC's win a plurality it would hurt the Liberals [and NDP] to be seen denying them the chance to form a government. But the Liberals and NDP could not be faulted for voting against a PC throne speech they could not support on its merits. Once The PC's throne speech failed most Ontarians would not want another election that could once again end in another minority. Most Ontarians would likely be happier if the second and third place parties cooperated in providing stable government. 

Pages