Ontario Minority Scenarios

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wilf Day

peterjcassidy wrote:
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 as government until losing a confidence vote. If they lose a confidenve vote there 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.

That's why Wynne's resignation as premier would be dangerous.

To quote the House of Commons website again:

Quote:
if an election gave no party a clear majority and the prime minister asked for a fresh election without even allowing the new Parliament to meet, the Governor General would have to say no. This is because, if “parliamentary government” is to mean anything, a newly elected House of Commons must at least be allowed to meet and see whether it can transact public business.

But that is if the incumbent premier asked for a fresh election. If she resigns, and a NEW premier asked for a snap election without ever meeting the House, would the Lieutenant-Governor grant the request? He shouldn't, in my view, but can we be sure?

 

Wilf Day

A remarkably partisan column here by Steve Paikin. Odd that he swallows Wynne's line:

Quote:
If the Progressive Conservatives led by Tim Hudak win the most number of seats, they'll get the first chance to form a minority government.

Yes, that's what Wynne said last week. For the first time. Will she still say it Thursday night?

Quote:
So it seems Horwath would have to defeat a Hudak government at her earliest opportunity, which presumably would be a Speech from the Throne this fall.

But what next?

Well, it would seem unlikely that the lieutenant-governor would send Ontarians back to the polls just a few months after having had an election. So the next logical step would be to ask the second place party, the Liberals, to try to form a viable government.

True. But if they are in the middle of a leadership race, they will abstain on that confidence vote, handing Hudak a mandate to govern.

So this all assumes Wynne resigns as premier but not as leader, aiming to come back to office in the fall. Does anyone know of any leader in a parliamentary system who has pulled that off?

 

Ciabatta2

Seems pretty likely to me.  The way this goes, the NDP abstains from a vote in either minority scenario given the leadership election that will take place.  Wynne knows this, so if she doesn't come out on top all she has to do is wait.  The only thing the PCs and NDP have in common is the energy bloat issue.

Debater

How on earth can NDP supporters here think that Wynne would have any option to resign if she doesn't win the most seats?  She's not going to work with Hudak, and Horwath has poisioned the well for a Liberal-NDP arrangement by calling Wynne & her government corrupt all through the last week.

JKR

Debater wrote:
How on earth can NDP supporters here think that Wynne would have any option to resign if she doesn't win the most seats?  She's not going to work with Hudak, and Horwath has poisioned the well for a Liberal-NDP arrangement by calling Wynne & her government corrupt all through the last week.

If she resigns in the face of a PC minority and the OLP does not then work with either the PC's or NDP, there's going to be yet another election very soon and then the voters would likely punish the Liberals [and NDP] if they cause another election so soon after this one by rewarding the PC's with a majority. So if Wynne wants to avoid that scenario, she'll have to work with either Hudak or Howrath. So if the PC's get a minority she'll have to choose between at least two kinds of poisons.

In the event of a PC minority, if Wynne believed in her platform above partisan political considerations, she would negotiate with the PC's and NDP after the election to see which party bests supports the Liberal election platform. She would then make a deal with the PC's or NDP based on those negotiations. If the election results in some kind of minority we will find out to what extent Wynne and the OLP value their election platform over partisan politics.

Debater

I guess what I meant to say is that the attacks Wynne & Horwath are making on each other are not only turning off a lot of NDP & Liberal voters, but are damaging their own credibility and working relationship.

How can they form an arrangement together now that Horwath has called Wynne corrupt and now that Wynne has said Horwath has betrayed the Broadbent/Layton legacy?

JKR

Debater wrote:

I guess what I meant to say is that the attacks Wynne & Horwath are making on each other are not only turning off a lot of NDP & Liberal voters, but are damaging their own credibility and working relationship.

How can they form an arrangement together now that Horwath has called Wynne corrupt and now that Wynne has said Horwath has betrayed the Broadbent/Layton legacy?

With all this bad blood it is difficult to see the Liberals and NDP coming together to prevent Hudak from becoming premier if the PCs get a minority.

If Hudak becomes premier it will be interesting to see how much of the PC platform the PCs try to get through the Legislature. If the PCs stick to their right-wing platform, I think their government would be short-lived. I don't see them passing their proposals to cut 100,000 public sector workers or reducing corporate taxes to 10%.

Jacob Two-Two

Well, maybe the Liberals could grow up a bit, if that's at all possible. Bad blood is what happens when you're running against each other for office, but nobody that runs for Premier is as thin-skinned as people are suggesting. If they are responsible people, they will get over the inevitable acrimony of campaigning and enact the will of the public by forming the best government they can out of the parliment that gets elected. I am sure Horwath will have no trouble doing this.

But that's obviously a little too mature for Liberals to manage, based on Wynne's comments. Given how the federal Liberals threw away every chance they got to topple harper's minority, I shouldn't be surprised, but it shows you clearly why support keeps fleeing from this party. I guess we can always hope that this latest pearl from the Premier is another lie like most of what comes out of her mouth, and she will bahave like an adult when the time comes.

Debater

Jacob Two-Two, I wish you could express yourself without calling those in other parties liars.

And you are always claiming that support keeps fleeing from the Liberals and predicting that they will be wiped out.  Which party are you referring to?  The provincial one or the federal one?  Because the federal Liberals are the only party to have increased their vote share since the last election, whereas the NDP & CPC are down.

That doesn't tell us for sure what will happen in 2015, but it does show that things at the federal level are a little different than you make out now at least.

Anyway, what JKR said is sensible and reflects what I was trying to get at.  Yes there can be some 'bad blood' at times between leaders, but it becomes difficult to turn around and work together after an election if you've just called your opponent's government corrupt (as Horwath has done) or invoke prior leaders to condemn your opponent (as Wynne has done).  Both of them are better than that, and it may be Hudak that is the beneficiary.

Rokossovsky

Ciabatta2 wrote:
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.

So what went wrong?

Debater

What went wrong for whom?  The Liberals & the NDP?

Why do you keep asking 'So what went wrong' on every page?

This campaign hasn't worked out the way any of the leaders probably hoped, Hudak included.

Debater

JKR wrote:

With all this bad blood it is difficult to see the Liberals and NDP coming together to prevent Hudak from becoming premier if the PCs get a minority.

Yes, Andrew Coyne wrote about the situation that the Ontario leaders have gotten themselves into:

----

The leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, Kathleen Wynne, is telling NDP-leaning voters they must vote Liberal or risk putting the Progressive Conservatives in power. “A vote for Andrea Horwath is a vote for Tim Hudak,” she says. She professes to be “afraid of” Mr. Hudak, while attacking Ms. Horwath for her supposed “Rob Ford-style” populism.

For her part, the leader of the New Democratic Party is telling voters they can vote for whichever party they prefer. Or rather, they can vote against either of the other two parties. They do not have to choose, Ms. Horwath says, between “corrupt and crazy,” by which she presumably means the Liberals and the Conservatives. Nevertheless, she does not rule out entering into a coalition with either party, the criminals or the insane.

----

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/06/09/andrew-coyne-betting-the-...

mark_alfred

If the Libs come second in a plurality win of the Cons, they may support them initially in a vote by vote basis, declaring that "they have the right to govern" (ignoring the coalition or accord option).  Wynne stays on as leader, especially if the NDP went down in seats.  Then perhaps six months down the road (when a coalition or accord would no longer be an option) I can see the Libs becoming very aggressive in voting against the Cons, wanting an election and wanting to force the NDP's hand.  I see this as a possibility because the Libs are currently the most financially stable party (they have the largest war chest), and the NDP is the weakest.  They'd want to move quickly before corporate dough began to flow into the coffers of the PCs in the same amount that corporate dough currently flows into the coffers of the Liberal Party of Ontario. 

gadar
mersh

 

I use a heckuva lot of antiquated expressions, but this sounds like something Col. Potter would say!

nicky

It's quite insincere of Wynne to say both:

 

1. I'm afraid of what a Hudak government would do.

 

2. I will let him form the government regardless of the will of the electorate so long as he has even one more seat than me.

gadar

Calling no to a coalition does not mean not supporting. It just means they will not be a part of the government. They could still prop them. Pretending to be clear yet staying ambiguous.

ProfShawn

I can't imagine that the NDP brass would be tone deaf enough to form any sort of coalition with the Conservatives. I for one would burn my membership card adn never give the NDP another bloody dime if they crawled into bed with Hudak's right to work gang.  The Ontario Conservatives under Hudak are repugnant.  

I'm tired of the Gas Plant Scandal crap, Law and Order and Scandal mongering, chattering about Taxpayers getting value for money, that is all right wing shit and we only paint ourselves into the tight and right, corner of the spectrum but joining the conservatives in this constant prattle.   The Liberals moves some gas plants that the other parties also agreed to move and it cost a bunch of cash to do so.  This isn't a scandal where members of cabinet were walking off with brief cases of cash, it was stupid and wrong but we devalue the public discussion by only focusing on this. 

Where was the NDP platform on Electoral Reform?  How about Poverty Issues? How about just about anything?  Oh and the talking heads and the apologists, the party people fanned out on Twitter and social media to repeat the same talking points.  When did we become like this, a bunch of mindless drones repeating party corporate speak.   The other day on Twitter I pointed out to a party person that the Liberals 30% Tuition reduction for families under $160K household was really helpful for a lot of people I know, my own family included (one in University and one on the way in a year).  Her response was a talking point about how the Liberals are only supporting "the elite" with their tuition rebate because they allegedly took away tax cuts from Part-time Students, Mature students and text books.   There was no discussion or consideration that this party mouthpiece had just basically dismissed me and pretty much every middle class person with a teenager that I know as "Elite". 

Her comment however is not unusual, because in this election Horwath and the Party have joined the Conservatives in a race towards populist bullshit.   The Joe the Plumber crap is ruining politics and public discussion, dumbing it down to the point where it is meaningless.  

Back to the topic at hand, I think the most likely scenario if Minority occurs is a Liberal led, NDP backed Coaliton or Accord. If the NDP was smart (which I'm no longer convinced that it is) they would insist on a proper accord like those from other Countries with Minority Governments and insist on actual Cabinet seats in the Colaiton Government and like Rae in Peterson in 1985, there needs to be an agreement on a number of years where the support would be a given.    Some say that Truedau Offered Broadbent Cabinet Positions which the Federal NDP refused, that was a mistake. 

Whatever the outcome is, I can only hope that the party in power works for electoral reform.  The NDP could begin once again to behave like a left of centre party if they didn't need to sell their soul for the faint hope of power each election.    Personally (although I'm a New Democrat) I'm hoping for a Liberal Majority. I'm a public servant and I have kids in University, I would like to see some stability for 4 years.   Also I would like to Horwath and the party temporarily punished with a loss of seats, for forcing an unnecessary election. 

josh

gadar wrote:

Calling no to a coalition does not mean not supporting. It just means they will not be a part of the government. They could still prop them. Pretending to be clear yet staying ambiguous.

^^^^^^^^^^

Rokossovsky

If I wrote "ROFL" here, it would be deemed trolling. So I won't.

Let's talk about the Made in Ontario Space Program that Horwath has yet to deny supporting, shall we?

Wilf Day

nicky wrote:

It's quite insincere of Wynne to say both:

 

1. I'm afraid of what a Hudak government would do.

 

2. I will let him form the government regardless of the will of the electorate so long as he has even one more seat than me.

That's the point. I can't believe she really means that. But how will she finesse her way out of it? 

Ciabatta2

"I'm a public servant and I have kids in University, I would like to see some stability for 4 years."

Watch out, there's going to be no stability for the public service in the next four years, majority or minority.

I still don't understand the unnecessary election critique, given that one was coming by 2015 anyway.

 

Ciabatta2

No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  Wynne introduces the same budget, which the NDP passes (supports or abstains) making the election optically useless and making the NDP look stupid.

Unless they miraculously come out stronger, the NDP is completely cornered.  They've been played off the park by the Liberals here.

The only potential silver lining for the NDP here is that under scenario 2 the Liberals are forced to a) live up to their newfound leftiness, for which the NDP can take some credit if they're a junior partner, or b) not live up to their platform, and the NDP can say "I told you so".  But even in b), the Liberals will engineer an election before they have to fully disappoint - e.g. before 2017 pension committment.  The Liberals have ordered six double downs and they're going eventually have to eat the sandwich.

Rokossovsky

Wow. Remind me never to let you lead a squad into combat.

Wilf Day

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  

True. So she disrupts the entire Ontario government by letting Hudak form a government, pass cabinet regulations requiring no legislative approval, appoint OMB members and judges, lay off civil servants, privatize anything not requiring a bill, and then when the House finally meets she says "oops, I resigned too soon, I'm ready to move back in," both parties vote Hudak out, and born-again Premier Wynne says "as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself . . ."

Really?  Why?

 

gadar

ProfShawn wrote:

I'm tired of the Gas Plant Scandal crap, Law and Order and Scandal mongering, chattering about Taxpayers getting value  for money, that is all right wing shit and we only paint ourselves into the tight and right, corner of the spectrum but joining the conservatives in this constant prattle.   The Liberals moves some gas plants that the other parties also agreed to move and it cost a bunch of cash to do so.  This isn't a scandal where members of cabinet were walking off with brief cases of cash, it was stupid and wrong but we devalue the public discussion by only focusing on this. 

Where was the NDP platform on Electoral Reform?  How about Poverty Issues? How about just about anything?  Oh and the talking heads and the apologists, the party people fanned out on Twitter and social media to repeat the same talking points.  When did we become like this, a bunch of mindless drones repeating party corporate speak.   The other day on Twitter I pointed out to a party person that the Liberals 30% Tuition reduction for families under $160K household was really helpful for a lot of people I know, my own family included (one in University and one on the way in a year).  Her response was a talking point about how the Liberals are only supporting "the elite" with their tuition rebate because they allegedly took away tax cuts from Part-time Students, Mature students and text books.   There was no discussion or consideration that this party mouthpiece had just basically dismissed me and pretty much every middle class person with a teenager that I know as "Elite". 

I would add web forums to Twitter and social media.

Harper gang showed us that it works.

Quote:

Her comment however is not unusual, because in this election Horwath and the Party have joined the Conservatives in a race towards populist bullshit.   The Joe the Plumber crap is ruining politics and public discussion, dumbing it down to the point where it is meaningless.  

Whatever the outcome is, I can only hope that the party in power works for electoral reform.  The NDP could begin once again to behave like a left of centre party if they didn't need to sell their soul for the faint hope of power each election.    Personally (although I'm a New Democrat) I'm hoping for a Liberal Majority. I'm a public servant and I have kids in University, I would like to see some stability for 4 years.   Also I would like to Horwath and the party temporarily punished with a loss of seats, for forcing an unnecessary election. 

Be prepared for a let down.

Ciabatta2

Don't worry.  I'm a whiner, not a fighter.

Wilf Day

mark_alfred wrote:

So, I don't know how Toronto will turn out.  But, I'm going to stick with my original prediction that I posted here a while ago, where I felt that one seat in Toronto would be lost to the Liberals.  However, I do feel the NDP will gain some seats, as I feel the PCs will, and the Liberals will lose some seats.  The Liberals will be a very close second to the Conservates, and the NDP will be a closer third than they are now.

To reiterate my prediction of seats from May 30, 2014 - 10:57pm #96

PC = 41 | Lib = 39 | NDP = 27

That's why I started this thread. If Wynne resigns on election night, she will regret it.

 

mark_alfred

Yeah, you'd think after Ignatieff that she (and Liberals in general) would have learned to avoid making such a silly declaration against accords or coalitions (specifically ruling it out if Hudak wins a plurality.)

mark_alfred

mark_alfred wrote:

Yeah, you'd think after Ignatieff that she (and Liberals in general) would have learned to avoid making such a silly declaration against accords or coalitions (specifically ruling it out if Hudak wins a plurality.)

On second thought, what am I talking about?  You'd think I would have learned to avoid making such a silly declaration that what a Liberal says she's going to do is actually what she will do.  Declarations from Liberals are meaningless.

nicky

Wynne took this "position" today:

"Pressed on whether she would direct her MPPs to defeat every Hudak initiative, Wynne would not go into details and repeated a line she began using last week.

“Whatever party gets the most seats in this election on Thursday has the right to form a government and I will not support a Tim Hudak government,” she said, refusing to take further questions."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario_election/2014/06/10/kathleen_wynne_s...

I find this utterly incoherent. If she opposes a Hudak minority why would she not seek an accord  or coalition to prevent a government she says she "fears?"

Perhaps Debater can explain this for me?

 

ProfShawn

Wilf Day wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  

True. So she disrupts the entire Ontario government by letting Hudak form a government, pass cabinet regulations requiring no legislative approval, appoint OMB members and judges, lay off civil servants, privatize anything not requiring a bill, and then when the House finally meets she says "oops, I resigned too soon, I'm ready to move back in," both parties vote Hudak out, and born-again Premier Wynne says "as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself . . ."

Really?  Why?

 

I don't think that Wynne had any choice but to say that.  If she had said up front that she would hold on to power and attempt to broker a coalition if she came in second, the Conservative based, aided by the dumber than dumb media, would have spun this story, and we would have heard no end to cries of foul and coup.    What Wynne did, that our foolish friend Iggy failed to do, was not rule out forming a Government by Coaliton if the Conservatives win the most seats but cannot pass  a throne speech, or budget.  She in effect took the wind out of the Conservatives Sails.

ProfShawn

nicky wrote:

Wynne took this "position" today:

"Pressed on whether she would direct her MPPs to defeat every Hudak initiative, Wynne would not go into details and repeated a line she began using last week.

“Whatever party gets the most seats in this election on Thursday has the right to form a government and I will not support a Tim Hudak government,” she said, refusing to take further questions."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario_election/2014/06/10/kathleen_wynne_s...

I find this utterly incoherent. If she opposes a Hudak minority why would she not seek an accord  or coalition to prevent a government she says she "fears?"

Perhaps Debater can explain this for me?

 

 

I think that Wynne is saying that she would give the Conservatives the first chance to come before the Legislature with a Throne Speech, if the Conservatives (Like Millers Conservatives in 1985) could not get a majority vote in the house (confidence) then their Government would fall.  The other parties then could present an alternative Government to the Lt. Governor (as Peterson and Rae did in 1985).  

I believe that is what she is saying.  The Media in Canada doesn't understand our Parlimentary System well  (or they are willfully blind) and they spin out stories that further confuse people.   Voters don't elect Governments in our System, the representatives sent by the voters (MPPS) choose the Government in a Confidence Vote.  Any Government must maintin the Confidence of the House.

mark_alfred

Kathleen Wynne wrote:
“Whatever party gets the most seats in this election on Thursday has the right to form a government and I will not support a Tim Hudak government,” she said, refusing to take further questions.

Translated, it means "I will sit on my hands."  The party that has support of the most seats in the house has the right to form government, not the party who "gets the most seats in this election."  She's pulling an Ignatieff.

Aristotleded24

Ciabatta2 wrote:
No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  Wynne introduces the same budget, which the NDP passes (supports or abstains) making the election optically useless and making the NDP look stupid.

You forgot:

3.  Wynne steps down as leader, thus throwing them into a leadership race and then they won't really want to rock the boat, so whether by abstention or enough MPPs who come down with "the flu," the Liberals in that scenario will let the PCs govern by default.

This becomes a moot point in the unlikely event that the NDP finishes second, because having the first right of response to the government gives them advantages they have not had to this point.

Wilf Day

The morning after the debate, Wynne said that if she wins the election the legislature will be reconvened and the May 1 budget reintroduced within 20 days. So the House will meet July 2 or earlier.

Hudak, of course, would not meet the House that fast.

Wynne's finesse is to say Hudak has the right to form a government if the legislature wants him to, and she will call the House promptly in order to let the elected members have their say, and operate only as a caretaker government until July 2 -- and she can point out that Hudak has made no such pledge. 

PrairieDemocrat15

Wilf Day wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  

True. So she disrupts the entire Ontario government by letting Hudak form a government, pass cabinet regulations requiring no legislative approval, appoint OMB members and judges, lay off civil servants, privatize anything not requiring a bill, and then when the House finally meets she says "oops, I resigned too soon, I'm ready to move back in," both parties vote Hudak out, and born-again Premier Wynne says "as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself . . ."

Really?  Why?

If Wynne resigns, doesn't Hudak have to meet the Assembly and get its confidence before he could do all those scary things you mentioned? Would he not have to present a Throne Speech at the start of the new Legislature, which the NDP (and presumably the Liberals) would reject?

PrairieDemocrat15

gadar wrote:

ProfShawn wrote:

Quote:

Her comment however is not unusual, because in this election Horwath and the Party have joined the Conservatives in a race towards populist bullshit.   The Joe the Plumber crap is ruining politics and public discussion, dumbing it down to the point where it is meaningless.  

Whatever the outcome is, I can only hope that the party in power works for electoral reform.  The NDP could begin once again to behave like a left of centre party if they didn't need to sell their soul for the faint hope of power each election.    Personally (although I'm a New Democrat) I'm hoping for a Liberal Majority. I'm a public servant and I have kids in University, I would like to see some stability for 4 years.   Also I would like to Horwath and the party temporarily punished with a loss of seats, for forcing an unnecessary election. 

Be prepared for a let down.

Indeed, the Liberals are the party least likely to impliment electoral reform given that the FPTP system and the strategic voting it encourages is the only reason that party still exists.

gadar

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Indeed, the Liberals are the party least likely to impliment electoral reform given that the FPTP system and the strategic voting it encourages is the only reason that party still exists.

Nor are the Cons or NDP for that matter. NDP campaigned against PR here in BC.

Jacob Two-Two

Yeah, in BC it wasn't in their short-term interests (stupid assholes). With only two parties in contention, they hoped to sneak into office with a false majority. The ONDP, on the other hand, could only benefit from PR, not just in seats but also in removing the "strategic voting" tactic from the Liberals. Doesn't mean they're smart enough to do it, though.

ProfShawn

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:
No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  Wynne introduces the same budget, which the NDP passes (supports or abstains) making the election optically useless and making the NDP look stupid.

You forgot:

3.  Wynne steps down as leader, thus throwing them into a leadership race and then they won't really want to rock the boat, so whether by abstention or enough MPPs who come down with "the flu," the Liberals in that scenario will let the PCs govern by default.

This becomes a moot point in the unlikely event that the NDP finishes second, because having the first right of response to the government gives them advantages they have not had to this point.

 

Wynne isn't going to be resigning, she in fact is the only leader who may survive this election.  If Hudak doesn't form Government he is toast. If Horwath loses seats (which she likely will) she should be toast.

Wilf Day

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Wilf Day wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No need to finesse anything. She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1. The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2. The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.

True. So she disrupts the entire Ontario government by letting Hudak form a government, pass cabinet regulations requiring no legislative approval, appoint OMB members and judges, lay off civil servants, privatize anything not requiring a bill, and then when the House finally meets she says "oops, I resigned too soon, I'm ready to move back in," both parties vote Hudak out, and born-again Premier Wynne says "as I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself . . ."

Really? Why?

If Wynne resigns, doesn't Hudak have to meet the Assembly and get its confidence before he could do all those scary things you mentioned? Would he not have to present a Throne Speech at the start of the new Legislature, which the NDP (and presumably the Liberals) would reject?

If Wynne resigns, Hudak is entitled to be sworn in as Premier, not as a caretaker, and he can wait months before convening the legislature. On the other hand, Wynne should be a caretaker if she stays on (although McGuinty did not act as a caretaker when he lost his majority in 2011.)

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

The ONDP, on the other hand, could only benefit from PR, not just in seats but also in removing the "strategic voting" tactic from the Liberals. Doesn't mean they're smart enough to do it, though.

Official statement from the ONDP office:
"From the point of view of the ONDP Caucus, the position is that we should have PR and that it should include these elements:
a) preservation of the traditional link between voter and MPP by keeping constituency seats;
b) two votes: one for a local constituency candidate and one for a Party's list of candidates;
c) Party lists to be developed and applied at a regional rather than provincial level;
d) restoration and enhancement of democracy through the provision of additional seats in the Legislature;
e) additional seats to be filled from Party Lists so as to offset disproportionality between the constituency elections and the popular Party vote.

This is the position the Caucus will advocate for."
(The same policy adopted in 2002.)

NorthReport

 

Ken Burch wrote:

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.

 

/quote]

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.

gadar

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Yeah, in BC it wasn't in their short-term interests (stupid assholes). With only two parties in contention, they hoped to sneak into office with a false majority. The ONDP, on the other hand, could only benefit from PR, not just in seats but also in removing the "strategic voting" tactic from the Liberals. Doesn't mean they're smart enough to do it, though.

If ONDP is the party in power then the strategic voting tactic is going to start working in their favour. They will have no incentive to change the system. As far as politicians are concerned they always look out for short term interests before the long term as the short term benefits them personally. Long term may or may not.

takeitslowly

NDP was in ppwer once in the 90s. 

Aristotleded24

ProfShawn wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:
No need to finesse anything.  She's saying if Hudak wins the most seats, she'll let him form a government, which results in two scenarios:

1.  The NDP prop up the PCs, which then means Wynne's "Horwath=Hudak" schtick becomes true for many voters regardless of what the NDP gets out of the PCs.

2.  The NDP says no way to the PCs, which would then make Wynne premier.  Wynne introduces the same budget, which the NDP passes (supports or abstains) making the election optically useless and making the NDP look stupid.

You forgot:

3.  Wynne steps down as leader, thus throwing them into a leadership race and then they won't really want to rock the boat, so whether by abstention or enough MPPs who come down with "the flu," the Liberals in that scenario will let the PCs govern by default.

This becomes a moot point in the unlikely event that the NDP finishes second, because having the first right of response to the government gives them advantages they have not had to this point.

 

Wynne isn't going to be resigning, she in fact is the only leader who may survive this election.  If Hudak doesn't form Government he is toast. If Horwath loses seats (which she likely will) she should be toast.

If one of the other parties wins a majority that is a possibility, but if the election returns a minority, even with fewer seats, Horwath isn't going anywhere. The NDP is going to be tapped from the campaign, it is not going to want to squander resources on a leadership race during such an unstable time in the legislature.

All the speculation really is futile. If Hudak wins a plurality of seats, he becomes Premier. Period. The Liberals will go through all sorts of formailities, but when push comes to shove, they will basically step aside and let Hudak govern in that scenario.

gadar

takeitslowly wrote:

NDP was in ppwer once in the 90s. 

Thats exactly what i was saying. When a party forms govt. it shows that FTPT works for them, therefore there is no incentive to bring in PR.

mark_alfred

I wonder if perhaps a temporary accord, like perhaps for a year, would be possible between the PCs and the NDP.  I doubt either would try, but it might be interesting.  Maybe an agreement to not touch the corporate tax for this time period, to remove the HST off hydro, to .... hmm, I can't really think of much that they'd have in common to make an accord over.  Well, it would never happen anyway.  I imagine that Hudak would just go on a vote by vote basis.  The only thing is unlike the federal Cons, the Ontario PCs don't have a financial advantage over the Ontario Libs.  In fact, it's quite the opposite.  So the Ont Libs would be less gun-shy than were the Dion or the Ignatieff Libs.  And thus a PC minority could potentially be quite unstable.  Which may provide them with the motivation to attempt to negotiate an accord with the NDP.  Still, hard to imagine what they could find in common for such a document.

Aristotleded24

Keep in mind that if Hudak wins the most seats, Wynne is gone as Liberal leader for sure. With that instability, the Liberals will not want to have an election, and they will do everything in their power to avoid having one until it's convenient for them.

A side benefit of this scenario is that if any seats become vacant, Hudak will want to call a by-election right away, either to replace one of his departed MPPs or to add more seats in the hopes of reaching a majority. The NDP could gain seats in this scenario, as they have shown that in the by-elections they have the advantage of being able to focus and win. It happened under Horwath, and it even happened under Hampton between 2003 and 2007.

Jacob Two-Two

I think they would be idiots to let Hudak become Premier if they could prevent it. Voters would desert them in droves. Remember how well that worked out for the federal Liberals. They were rewarded with a majority... for the Conservatives.

Pages