Ontario Minority Scenarios

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rokossovsky

Assuming the Liberals care about losing voters in droves. The Ignatieff strategy seems essentially to be to let the Harper Tories hang themselves by letting them rule as they wished. This campaign worked to the extent that it set in motion the force that got the NDP into the position as official opposition.

But, on the key economic points there is not much that seperates that Liberals from the Tories, so in a material sense they don't have much incentive to do much other than wait for better weather, or the son of a nationally known and popular prime minister to take the helm.

takeitslowly

the liberals want voters to blame the NDP for a Hudak govt. Its good for them to let Hudak govern

 

 on a personal note i wish to go back to 2011 when jack layton won 104 seats and my mom was still alive and didnt have cancer...life sucks now ..thats why i am killing time here...definitely not a paid staff voting for thr ndp in case anyone is wondering

Jacob Two-Two

Come on. I know the media is hostile and everything, but if Horwath comes right out and says that she'll make a coalition with the Liberals and they turn her down, how are they going to spin that? There's got to be some limit to how much they can bullshit people. I don't think it will fly.

takeitslowly

kathleen could havee just said i will let the voters decide. But she wants a strong mandate. She wants a majority and she wont entertain "hypothetical" and she wont try to work with the NDP even if Hudak has only one more seat than the liberal. She also dont support the Hudak minority. She said thetes only two choices lib or con. Wah wah . Self entitled. Arrogant. Repulsive and corrupt

takeitslowly

i thought ontario had a referendum on PR. the libs and cons were against it. 

Rokossovsky

gadar wrote:

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.

Why are you so excited about Prop Rep?

What about simple things like equitable riding population distribution? That is actually doable without major changes, and will eliminate the democratic deficit of urban voters.

Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Rokossovsky

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Come on. I know the media is hostile and everything, but if Horwath comes right out and says that she'll make a coalition with the Liberals and they turn her down, how are they going to spin that? There's got to be some limit to how much they can bullshit people. I don't think it will fly.

The economic agenda in play in this election is bigger than the election. I think the Liberals will let it go to the Tories.

NorthReport

The NDP needs to support the minority PCs for a while, long enough to get the corruption inquiry off the ground.

Once that is in process, but only then, the NDP can reassess their support of the PCs.

Does anyone seriously think the truth will come out if the Liberals are the government? Laughing

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Come on. I know the media is hostile and everything, but if Horwath comes right out and says that she'll make a coalition with the Liberals and they turn her down, how are they going to spin that? There's got to be some limit to how much they can bullshit people. I don't think it will fly.

PrairieDemocrat15

Rokossovsky wrote:

gadar wrote:

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.

Why are you so excited about Prop Rep?

What about simple things like equitable riding population distribution? That is actually doable without major changes, and will eliminate the democratic deficit of urban voters.

Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Districting does make a difference. I believe, provincially, Manitoba has the most even apportionment between rural and urban, while Alberta (no suprise) has the most malapportioned ridings in favour of rural voters.

Ontario also needs more seats. Its ridiculous the province has the same number of MPPs as it does MPs. Part of the purpose of subnational is closer representation. I hope the NDP argue in favour of a new distribution instead of just automatically adopting the federal arraignment.

JKR

Rokossovsky wrote:
Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Following that logic, since we have FPTP, the NDP, Liberals, and Greens should merge into one big tent party.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP needs to support the minority PCs for a while, long enough to get the corruption inquiry off the ground.

Horwath thinks that idea is "bullspit."

Rokossovsky

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Following that logic, since we have FPTP, the NDP, Liberals, and Greens should merge into one big tent party.

People suggest this kind of thing all the time.

JKR

Rokossovsky wrote:

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Following that logic, since we have FPTP, the NDP, Liberals, and Greens should merge into one big tent party.

People suggest this kind of thing all the time.

But wouldn't that be undemocratic?

I think it's undemocratic that socialists and poverty activists have to be a junior wing within the NDP. I also think it's undemocratic that social conservatives have to be a junior wing within the PC/Conservatives.

David Young

And if the Liberals and P.C.s tie in the number of seats that each party wins?

What happens then?

 

Rokossovsky

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Following that logic, since we have FPTP, the NDP, Liberals, and Greens should merge into one big tent party.

People suggest this kind of thing all the time.

But wouldn't that be undemocratic?

I think it's undemocratic that socialists and poverty activists have to be a junior wing within the NDP. I also think it's undemocratic that social conservatives have to be a junior wing within the PC/Conservatives.

My point is, like in the example of the Green Party in Germany, when and if they become part of government, they end up being the "junior wing" within the government, and the net effect is more or less the same in terms of policy outcomes.

Consensus, despite all the ballyhoo about voting, is much more powerful and common force in defining political outcomes, than you wish to believe.

 

JKR

Rokossovsky wrote:

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

JKR wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:
Moreover, will proportional representation really result in more diverse representation, or just move the internal intra-caucus debate from an internal consensus to an external public debate, and break up the big tent parties? Sometimes it seems to me that many smaller parties will still have to come to a consensus and form a block in order implement policy as government?

Following that logic, since we have FPTP, the NDP, Liberals, and Greens should merge into one big tent party.

People suggest this kind of thing all the time.

But wouldn't that be undemocratic?

I think it's undemocratic that socialists and poverty activists have to be a junior wing within the NDP. I also think it's undemocratic that social conservatives have to be a junior wing within the PC/Conservatives.

My point is, like in the example of the Green Party in Germany, when and if they become part of government, they end up being the "junior wing" within the government, and the net effect is more or less the same in terms of policy outcomes.

Consensus, despite all the ballyhoo about voting, is much more powerful and common force in defining political outcomes, than you wish to believe.

Then why would it not be a good thing for the NDP, Greens, and Liberals to merge and end the problem of vote-splitting?

Debater

How about this arrangement being proposed by The Sudbury Star? Smile

----

From Pundit's Guide:

The Sudbury Star calls for an #ONDP govt w/#OLP holding the balance of power.

https://twitter.com/punditsguide/status/476574068364156928

Debater

PrairieDemocrat15 wrote:

Ontario also needs more seats. Its ridiculous the province has the same number of MPPs as it does MPs. Part of the purpose of subnational is closer representation. I hope the NDP argue in favour of a new distribution instead of just automatically adopting the federal arraignment.

Ontario used to have more provincial seats.  That changed in 1995 when Mike Harris  & the PC's came in.  They reduced the number of seats substantially in order to 'save taxpayer's money'.

mark_alfred

I gave some more thought to the idea of an accord between the PCs and the NDP.  In going over the two platforms, I think it could be possible.  A coalition would not be possible, but I do think an accord might be possible.  Perhaps for 12 or maybe 18 months. So, they could sign an agreement where the NDP would not oppose the PCs on confidence votes for a year or so. They could define the conditions of the accord. I'm not sure if they have enough in common, but perhaps the following could be agreeable to both parties for a year or so:

During the time of the accord:

  1. Have public inquiries into the gas plant scandal, eHealth, and ORNGE
  2. Each agrees there will be neither corporate tax cuts nor raises
  3. take the HST off home hydro bills
  4. Establish a Financial Accountability Officer
  5. shrink the cabinet from 27 to 16
  6. greater use of nurse practitioners for home care/health care
  7. Maybe a restructuring of hydro to eliminate duplication and waste in the system to give lower hydro rates.
  8. Extra funds for kids with special needs in school
  9. ...and perhaps other things

Do this for a year (or 18 months) allowing each side to rebuild their electoral finances, then they'd be prepared for a possible election after the accord ends and the PCs are on their own.

josh

If the NDP want to commit suicide, there must be a better way than an accord with Tim Hudak.

ProfShawn

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

The NDP needs to support the minority PCs for a while, long enough to get the corruption inquiry off the ground.

Horwath thinks that idea is "bullspit."

How could any New Democrat  be okay with the party propping up the Conservatives?

ProfShawn

mark_alfred wrote:

I gave some more thought to the idea of an accord between the PCs and the NDP.  In going over the two platforms, I think it could be possible.  A coalition would not be possible, but I do think an accord might be possible.  Perhaps for 12 or maybe 18 months. So, they could sign an agreement where the NDP would not oppose the PCs on confidence votes for a year or so. They could define the conditions of the accord. I'm not sure if they have enough in common, but perhaps the following could be agreeable to both parties for a year or so:

During the time of the accord:

  1. Have public inquiries into the gas plant scandal, eHealth, and ORNGE
  2. Each agrees there will be neither corporate tax cuts nor raises
  3. take the HST off home hydro bills
  4. Establish a Financial Accountability Officer
  5. shrink the cabinet from 27 to 16
  6. greater use of nurse practitioners for home care/health care
  7. Maybe a restructuring of hydro to eliminate duplication and waste in the system to give lower hydro rates.
  8. Extra funds for kids with special needs in school
  9. ...and perhaps other things

Do this for a year (or 18 months) allowing each side to rebuild their electoral finances, then they'd be prepared for a possible election after the accord ends and the PCs are on their own.

The New Democratic Party would never be able to wash the stench off themselves if they entered such an accord.  The Unions would rightly never support them and they would lose traditional supporters in droves. I for one would ignite my membership card and never support the Provincial Party, ever again. 

Unionist

josh wrote:

If the NDP want to commit suicide, there must be a better way than an accord with Tim Hudak.

Trying to think of one...

mark_alfred

I feel the NDP has to be open to all possibilities.  If results can be gotten in an accord, then go for it, I say.  Layton actually was open to the idea of a coalition between the fed NDP and the Cons:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

Rokossovsky

I don't really think there is much difference between Conservatives or Liberals, other than cosmetics.

Ciabatta2

ProfShawn wrote:

The New Democratic Party would never be able to wash the stench off themselves if they entered such an accord.  The Unions would rightly never support them and they would lose traditional supporters in droves. I for one would ignite my membership card and never support the Provincial Party, ever again. 

So if the NDP gets some of its priorities implemented by working with the PCs without implementing Hudak's agenda (cuts, anti-worker stuff, etc.) that's against the purpose of the party?

Sometimes I wonder why, if the only role for the NDP in the minds of its supporters is a) to be in opposition or b) to prop up Liberals when they fail to win majorities, what is the point of supporting the NDP at all?  Many seem like they would be more comfortable in the Liberal fold.

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
I feel the NDP has to be open to all possibilities.  If results can be gotten in an accord, then go for it, I say.  Layton actually was open to the idea of a coalition between the fed NDP and the Cons: 
">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

There are other benefits to approaching this topic even if an accord does not work out. It contrasts the NDP's willingness to work with others with the intransigence of the other parties, and the swing voters would see that.

terrytowel

NDP 'best placed to stop' Tories: Horwath

"Don't let anybody tell you what to think and don't let anybody tell you how to vote," Horwath said.

She took aim at Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne, saying it's "very obvious" by now that the Grits "cannot stop Tim Hudak."

"No matter how desperate or how negative the Liberals get, Kathleen Wynne is not able to stop Tim Hudak," Horwath said.

"New Democrats, in fact, are the ones that are best placed to stop (the Conservatives)," she added.

ProfShawn

terrytowel wrote:

NDP 'best placed to stop' Tories: Horwath

"Don't let anybody tell you what to think and don't let anybody tell you how to vote," Horwath said.

She took aim at Liberal Leader Kathleen Wynne, saying it's "very obvious" by now that the Grits "cannot stop Tim Hudak."

"No matter how desperate or how negative the Liberals get, Kathleen Wynne is not able to stop Tim Hudak," Horwath said.

"New Democrats, in fact, are the ones that are best placed to stop (the Conservatives)," she added.

In what Math challenged Universe are we residing?  I know that the polls are not always spot on, but the best one for the NDP has them at 24%, the worst around 15%, how then is the statement "the NDP is the only Party that can stop Tim Hudak" anything other than Orwellian calibre Doublespeak.  Come on folks, do we think that Social Democrats are stupid?

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

I gave some more thought to the idea of an accord between the PCs and the NDP.  In going over the two platforms, I think it could be possible.  A coalition would not be possible, but I do think an accord might be possible.  Perhaps for 12 or maybe 18 months. So, they could sign an agreement where the NDP would not oppose the PCs on confidence votes for a year or so. They could define the conditions of the accord. I'm not sure if they have enough in common, but perhaps the following could be agreeable to both parties for a year or so:

During the time of the accord:

  1. Have public inquiries into the gas plant scandal, eHealth, and ORNGE
  2. Each agrees there will be neither corporate tax cuts nor raises
  3. take the HST off home hydro bills
  4. Establish a Financial Accountability Officer
  5. shrink the cabinet from 27 to 16
  6. greater use of nurse practitioners for home care/health care
  7. Maybe a restructuring of hydro to eliminate duplication and waste in the system to give lower hydro rates.
  8. Extra funds for kids with special needs in school
  9. ...and perhaps other things

Do this for a year (or 18 months) allowing each side to rebuild their electoral finances, then they'd be prepared for a possible election after the accord ends and the PCs are on their own.

I think the PCs would prefer to go on a vote by vote basis where they would be able to pass bills with some support of the Liberals to cut corporate taxes and cut jobs in the public service and increase class sizes etc....

Brachina

 The best one for the NDP was 28 not 24.

Brachina

 The big difference between the PCs and Libs is that the PCs are rightwing, because of pragmatic extremism, and the PCs because of idealogy. Usually the end result is the same, but occasionally the difference matters.

Debater

mark_alfred wrote:

I feel the NDP has to be open to all possibilities.  If results can be gotten in an accord, then go for it, I say.  Layton actually was open to the idea of a coalition between the fed NDP and the Conshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFIY44RtkTI

Indeed.

I think you've said more there than you realize. Wink

Debater

Rokossovsky wrote:

I don't really think there is much difference between Conservatives or Liberals, other than cosmetics.

This reminds me of the people who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

Wilf Day

ProfShawn wrote:
I know that the polls are not always spot on, but the best one for the NDP has them at 24%, the worst around 15%, how then is the statement "the NDP is the only Party that can stop Tim Hudak" anything other than Orwellian calibre Doublespeak.

It refers to riding races: only the NDP can beat the PCs in Oshawa, Sarnia, you name it.

And it refers to the fact the Wynne unwisely said she would hand over power to Hudak if he gets one more seat.

And it refers to the fact that most people want a change. The only way to stop Hudak is to give them a positive change.

Besides, we now have a 30% poll, and two others were at 28% and 26%. Momentum.

Wilf Day

Ciabatta2 wrote:
So if the NDP gets some of its priorities implemented by working with the PCs without implementing Hudak's agenda (cuts, anti-worker stuff, etc.) that's against the purpose of the party?

Stephen Lewis was quite successful working with the Bill Davis minorities. Rent control, Tenant's rights, Family Law reform, etc.

Hudak is no Bill Davis. Bullspit is right.

takeitslowly

I think when Wynne said Horwath's policies remind her of Rob Ford, she might have lost alot of votes there! It sounds snobbish and it doesn't help the image that she already has about lecturing voters

Jacob Two-Two

Also, to a lot of Conservative voters that Horwath was courting it may not have been an unflattering comparison. Strange as it is, people still love the guy, even many who understand that he can't be Mayor anymore.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What I don't understand is why Ford Nation doesn't just trade out Rob for Doug.  Doug has the exact same beliefs as Rob(its likely that Doug actually codified Rob's program into something like coherent form)but none of Rob's demons.   

Odd that the idea never seems to have occurred to them.

adma

He doesn't have the demons, but he doesn't have the charm, either.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Debater wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

I don't really think there is much difference between Conservatives or Liberals, other than cosmetics.

This reminds me of the people who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore.

Not really.  Since 1993, the Liberals have been totally right-wing on the issues that actually affect most people-trade policy, economic policy, fiscal policy and the social wage(Liberals want social spending to keep getting cut, meaning they no longer care at allabout low-income Canadians)and, for all practical purposes on foreign policy as well(does anyone think Justin won't keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan for decades to come and won't be an unquestioning supporter of everything the Israeli government does to Palestinians?)They won't even commit to restoring any of the cuts in transfer payments they made in the Chretien/Martin era that did massive damage to Medicare.

The only "progressive" policies the Liberals still have are on trivial side issues that don't threaten any of the privileges of the 1%.

If Justin Trudeau becomes prime minister in 2015, no one will even notice that Harper is gone.

ProfShawn

Wilf Day wrote:

ProfShawn wrote:
I know that the polls are not always spot on, but the best one for the NDP has them at 24%, the worst around 15%, how then is the statement "the NDP is the only Party that can stop Tim Hudak" anything other than Orwellian calibre Doublespeak.

It refers to riding races: only the NDP can beat the PCs in Oshawa, Sarnia, you name it.

And it refers to the fact the Wynne unwisely said she would hand over power to Hudak if he gets one more seat.

And it refers to the fact that most people want a change. The only way to stop Hudak is to give them a positive change.

Besides, we now have a 30% poll, and two others were at 28% and 26%. Momentum.

Wilf, IPSOS Reid has been publishing Conservative Friendly polls throughout the election, and in 2011 they were dead wrong. Forum and Abacus were closest in 2011, and the new Forum Poll in the Toronto Star shows the NDP below 20%.     Wilf I was there too in 1990 when the real momentum was behind us in the last days of summer, we new there was real momentum, not made up crap by a right wing pollster to install their guy.  I wish the NDP was at 37% and had another kick at the can like we did then, but we don't and if on June 12th Tim Hudak is the Premier we are collectively screwed.  I have three kids, one in Elementary school, one in University and one head to University in another year.  I'm also a public servant. A Hudak win will cost me about $12,000 in the next 5 years in lost Tuition rebate for my two oldest kids, that's just a beginning.  Will my colleagues and I even be employed?  Will our pensions remain in place?  My oldest considers teaching, will there be any teaching jobs left in Tim Hudak's Ontario? Each time the Conservatives, whether Federally or Provincially grab power for a couple of terms, our kids lose.  Federally right now the Cons are destroying the planet and robbing my kids' generation of civil liberties that we had when we were kids. Right after right gone, punitive law after punitive law put in place.   The NDP played a role in installing Harper in the first place (Jack defeated Martin, along with the Kelowna Accord and the Universal Child Care Program, remember!) 

Now here we are, Andrea's ego and the chance to win a  few more seats, possibly position the NDP better leads to her defeating a bundget that was widely supported by Labour.   That decision puts all of our kids futures at risk, just as Jack's decision in 2006 set off a series of unfortunate events.  

Some party people will say, hey it was worth it, we got Official Opposition!  Yep we got OP, in  parliament that has a Government that has implemented Law and Order Legislation, Repealed the Court Challenges Program, Turned us into a Global Environmental Bad Boy, ripped up Kyoto you name it, the series of events has changed Canada for the worse.  So I can't take great pleasure in our temporary Offical Opposition Status Federally either. 

The Left in Canada has to figure out when we are going to grow up.  As we dither and rearrange our furniture, the Conservatives have taken over everything everywhere.  

I'm not a traitor to the party as some folks might accuse me of being (Just at the old 34 who signed the Letter to Andrea weren't disloyal either).  I have watched the Party in Past Elections Publicly strip members of their membership cards at the Provincial Council, very Soviet like, I saw my first public shaming of disenting voices when I was 15 and attended my first provincial council with the old Quinte Prov Riding.  

Anyway, I will leave my rambling there, who knows what will happen tomorrow.  Whatever does happen I hope that we can begin a discussion afterwards of where the left goes from here.  

Aristotleded24

So with the minority, what happens if by-elections change the placement of the parties? For example, suppose a by-election changes which parties sit first or second, or second or third. Is a new government installed? Does a new Opposition Leader take over?

mark_alfred

It's up to the people, ProfShawn.  So, go out and vote Liberal tomorrow if you want.  I however will vote for Andrea.  We'll see which polls are correct tomorrow.  I'm guessing none of them are.  I predict that it will be premier Horwath tomorrow.  And I predict the spirit of Peter Kormos will be calling her to let her know, "Good job!"

Debater

Wilf Day wrote:

ProfShawn wrote:
I know that the polls are not always spot on, but the best one for the NDP has them at 24%, the worst around 15%, how then is the statement "the NDP is the only Party that can stop Tim Hudak" anything other than Orwellian calibre Doublespeak.

It refers to riding races: only the NDP can beat the PCs in Oshawa, Sarnia, you name it.

And it refers to the fact the Wynne unwisely said she would hand over power to Hudak if he gets one more seat.

And it refers to the fact that most people want a change. The only way to stop Hudak is to give them a positive change.

Besides, we now have a 30% poll, and two others were at 28% and 26%. Momentum.

The NDP is not in contention in Sarnia, so I don't know why Horwath keeps mentioning that riding.  It's a PC stronghold.  Oshawa is a possibility, yes, but that's pretty much one of the only PC ridings I think the NDP can take away from the PC's right now.  So she's full of baloney.  Not that that makes her worse than any other politician - they all stay stuff like that.  But in her case the math doesn't back her up.  Hudak is not the only who has his sums wrong.

Btw, do you agree that the Liberals are the only ones who can beat the PC's in certain riding races?  Eg. Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ottawa West-Nepean, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Ottawa-Orléans, etc.?

And we have several polls today that have the NDP well below 30%, and some even below 20%.  Personally I am predicting that the NDP will win 24%.

Wilf Day

Getting back on thread topic . . . to repeat my earlier post

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, 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 could be a caretaker if she stays on (although McGuinty did not act as a caretaker when he lost his majority in 2011.)

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.

Pages