NDP finishing ahead of Libs bad for progressive Canada (if no majority)

29 posts / 0 new

Sat, 2015-06-06 11:45

ilha formosa

Unless they somehow manage to win a long-shot majority, the NDP finishing ahead of the Liberals will not be good for a progressive agenda in Canada.

My reasoning is simple, based on the evidence that the Liberals lean towards the Cons on many issues.

Assuming there’s no majority, if the order of finish is:
1-Con 2-NDP 3-Lib
1-NDP 2/3 Con or Lib
then the Con+Lib total will control Parliament.

Paradoxically, by finishing behind the Liberals (& assuming no one with a majority), the NDP may have more leverage in Parliament.
If the order of finish is: 1-Lib 2/3 Con or NDP, then the Libs would need NDP support on at least some pieces of legislation. One hopes.

I still think the best order of finish (assuming there’s no majority) for a progressive agenda will be: 1-Con 2-Lib 3-NDP.
This would put a clear choice in front of Trudeau: Leader of Opposition facing Harper, or Prime Minister supported by the NDP. It would be a sharp watershed moment for the Liberal Party.

The NDP is a long way from a majority right now. But, Alberta.

Sat, 2015-06-06 11:51

ilha formosa

If it's a minority situation with this order of finish: 1-NDP 2/3 Con or Lib,

would the NDP be able to form government and pass legislation on a case-by-case basis? How long would it last?

Sat, 2015-06-06 11:59

quizzical

shilling for corporate interests? your comments make NO concrete sense to me. i guess you knew it too as you added "paradoxically".

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:00

josh

The Cons lasted 5 years with a minority. Depending on the numbers, I think the Libs would give the NDP at least a year before voting for a non-confidence motion. And if the polls show them not doing well, it could be a lot longer. And I don't see how an NDP minority government could be worse for progressives than a Conservative government.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:03

ilha formosa

Shilling for an NDP majority.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:10

mark_alfred

It's all strategic voting nonsense here. The only important consideration is voting for the party that offers the best policies for Canadians. And that is the NDP. The more votes and seats the NDP gets, the better.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:11

quizzical

ilha formosa wrote:
Shilling for an NDP majority.

lol...ya not so much!

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:13

takeitslowly

we need to get rid of Harper. a minority harper govt might be ideal for the NDP if they cant win a majority.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:17

ilha formosa

josh wrote:
And I don't see how an NDP minority government could be worse for progressives than a Conservative government.

An NDP minority would be far better than what Canada's endured under Harper's majority. But I'm speculating on how long it would last, or how to make it last. I'd assume it would mostly be a matter of winning support from a weakened Liberal party.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:24

#10

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

josh wrote:
And I don't see how an NDP minority government could be worse for progressives than a Conservative government.

An NDP minority would be far better than what Canada's endured under Harper's majority. But I'm speculating on how long it would last, or how to make it last. I'd assume it would mostly be a matter of winning support from a weakened Liberal party.

Indeed.

The Liberal Party in third would support the NDP in first -- if only becuase they would want to avoid another election. They would find it very hard to get donations for a new campaign

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:26

#11

ilha formosa

takeitslowly wrote:

we need to get rid of Harper. a minority harper govt might be ideal for the NDP if they cant win a majority.

Maybe so. That could lead to a replacement of Harper, then the parties jockeying for position ahead of another election probably not far down the road.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:43

#12

ilha formosa

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The Liberal Party in third would support the NDP in first -- if only becuase they would want to avoid another election. They would find it very hard to get donations for a new campaign

That allays (somewhat) my dread of the Libs siding with the Cons, which is the premise of this thread.

Sat, 2015-06-06 12:47

#13

takeitslowly

Also, its likely that Canadians are not comfortable with giving the NDP a majority until they see the NDP leading a minority government. Canadians are reserve, after all.

Sat, 2015-06-06 13:24

#14

mark_alfred

takeitslowly wrote:

Also, its likely that Canadians are not comfortable with giving the NDP a majority until they see the NDP leading a minority government. Canadians are reserve, after all.

Look at Alberta. Once Canadians make up their minds they want change, they dive in. That's what's going to happen. NDP majority. It's gonna happen.

Sat, 2015-06-06 14:21

#15

Policywonk

ilha formosa wrote:

If it's a minority situation with this order of finish: 1-NDP 2/3 Con or Lib,

would the NDP be able to form government and pass legislation on a case-by-case basis? How long would it last?

Depends on how many seats the Greens and Bloc get. Wherever you think the Greens are on the spectrum they won't be supporting the Conservatives, although they could support the Liberals if they were to have a plurality.

Sat, 2015-06-06 16:28

#16

Sean in Ottawa

takeitslowly wrote:

Also, its likely that Canadians are not comfortable with giving the NDP a majority until they see the NDP leading a minority government. Canadians are reserve, after all.

People do not vote for a majority or a minority they vote a preference. minority is when people do not widely agree on that preference. Often when people like a minority they upport the third party. The trend is away from that now.

Sat, 2015-06-06 16:41

#17

adma

Anyone who thinks the "Adam Vaughan" wing of the Liberals will willingly side with the Cons in order to stop the seat-topping-but-no-majority NDP is off his/her blooming rocker, I'll tell you that.

Sat, 2015-06-06 20:28

#18

Sean in Ottawa

adma wrote:

Anyone who thinks the "Adam Vaughan" wing of the Liberals will willingly side with the Cons in order to stop the seat-topping-but-no-majority NDP is off his/her blooming rocker, I'll tell you that.

Trudeau knows this. So do his advisors. He can keep his party together in supporting an NDP with a plurality -- he can't supporting a CPC without a plurality.

Now if the CPC have the most seats it is tricky for him. The argument to give the lead party a chance will be strong even though there will be a huge number of Liebrals who would be terrified by voter retribution should they fail to remove Harper when they actually could.

The NDP governing would be a blow to the Liberals but to be seen enabling a Conservative party to govern -- again -- without the cover of the "working with the BQ" argument, the Liebrals would split.

This is not to say that the Liberals will ahve any comfortable positions should they come in third but they will have to look at the least bad option. A support for a new government for a time is not as bad as support for a party that has governed a decade, lost its majority, has been heavily attacked by the Liberals. Not to forget the key weakness of the Liebrals is not their proximity to the NDP but their proximity to the Conservatives. Proving that would divide the party probably without any recovery.

Sat, 2015-06-06 22:39

#19

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

adma wrote:

Anyone who thinks the "Adam Vaughan" wing of the Liberals will willingly side with the Cons in order to stop the seat-topping-but-no-majority NDP is off his/her blooming rocker, I'll tell you that.

Trudeau knows this. So do his advisors. He can keep his party together in supporting an NDP with a plurality -- he can't supporting a CPC without a plurality.

Now if the CPC have the most seats it is tricky for him. The argument to give the lead party a chance will be strong even though there will be a huge number of Liebrals who would be terrified by voter retribution should they fail to remove Harper when they actually could.

The NDP governing would be a blow to the Liberals but to be seen enabling a Conservative party to govern -- again -- without the cover of the "working with the BQ" argument, the Liebrals would split.

This is not to say that the Liberals will ahve any comfortable positions should they come in third but they will have to look at the least bad option. A support for a new government for a time is not as bad as support for a party that has governed a decade, lost its majority, has been heavily attacked by the Liberals. Not to forget the key weakness of the Liebrals is not their proximity to the NDP but their proximity to the Conservatives. Proving that would divide the party probably without any recovery.

All true. If the Liberals fall to third place they wouldn't have any good options. I think Trudeau will resign if he doesn't improve the party's position significantly, probably at least official opposition or very close to it. For that reason I think the party would support whomever is in first place for the simple reason that they would be in no position to face another election. I don't see Trudeau performing well as oppostion leader either.

Deposing the Conservatives as a junior partner to the NDP is unlikely. I think it is more likely that some left leaning Liberal MPs could cross the floor if it meant enough seats to depose the Conservatives.

Sat, 2015-06-06 23:31

#20

Sean in Ottawa

My point is Trudeau would know this and even if it is his last act he is unlikely to deliberately take a step that would result in an instant split of his party.

Not deposing the Conservatives is a far riskier move. If the BQ had balance of power or the Conservatives had a massive lead over the NDP that might be one thing but if the Conservative lead over the NDP is only a small fraction of the number of seats the Liberals held then not supporting a change of government would make the Liberals look either like they don't understand how a parliamentary system works or like they sincerely prefer Harper over a change of government. In either case the only answer would have to be removal of the Liberal party as an electoral force in the following election.

Don't get me wrong -- I would abosolutely love for the Liberals to support a few more months of Harper becuase in the next election we would see an NDP majority and no Liberal party (to speak of) left. I think that they are not that stupid -- or at least they know some people who are not that stupid who will tell them exactly what would happen if they keep Harper in power when they could have changed the government.

Still, I can just see the NDP ads now. And I can also see the Cosnervative ads as well -- Liberals support the CPC so how can they say they are so bad? -- Liberals: just in it for themselves!

Please Liberals BE this stupid. I don't want to be right on this: -- mass political suicide by the Liberal party would be a great thing for Canada.

Sun, 2015-06-07 04:11

#21

ilha formosa

If today’s 308.com seat projections were the actual election result (Con-130, NDP-107, Lib-98 Bloc+Grn-3), and if the popular vote also showed a clear majority voted for the 2nd and 3rd place parties (currently their sum is 56% support), would Trudeau back a PM Mulcair, or allow another Harper minority to take office?

What would the NDP have to do to court Liberal support, or at least leave the door open for Liberal support? The NDP is still trending up now, but assuming the Con vote is quite solid, the NDP has to “be nice”, kind of, to the Liberals during the campaign, even as they try to win a majority at Trudeau's expense.

This does not preclude Mulcair verbally going for Trudeau's jugular in the debate to replace the AWOL Harper.

Sun, 2015-06-07 09:54

#22

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

If today’s 308.com seat projections were the actual election result (Con-130, NDP-107, Lib-98 Bloc+Grn-3), and if the popular vote also showed a clear majority voted for the 2nd and 3rd place parties (currently their sum is 56% support), would Trudeau back a PM Mulcair, or allow another Harper minority to take office?

What would the NDP have to do to court Liberal support, or at least leave the door open for Liberal support? The NDP is still trending up now, but assuming the Con vote is quite solid, the NDP has to “be nice”, kind of, to the Liberals during the campaign, even as they try to win a majority at Trudeau's expense.

This does not preclude Mulcair verbally going for Trudeau's jugular in the debate to replace the AWOL Harper.

This discussion would happen after the election. I doubt there would need to be much incentive on either side. discussions would happen right after the election if the numbers came out like this.

I don't beleive this projection -- I think it is too optimistic for the Conservatives

Sun, 2015-06-07 11:49

#23

adma

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't beleive this projection -- I think it is too optimistic for the Conservatives

Actually, I think it's too optimistic for the third-place *Liberals*.

Sun, 2015-06-07 12:02

#24

Sean in Ottawa

adma wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I don't beleive this projection -- I think it is too optimistic for the Conservatives

Actually, I think it's too optimistic for the third-place *Liberals*.

it may be

Sun, 2015-06-07 13:35

#25

socialdemocrati...

Threads like this are unhealthy. It's all well and good to speculate. But this shouldn't lull progressives into a false sense that the NDP is going to win, or even that this is turning into a two way race between the NDP and the Conservatives.

So much of what happens in this election depends on us.

Sun, 2015-06-07 19:49

#26

Pondering

ilha formosa wrote:

If today’s 308.com seat projections were the actual election result (Con-130, NDP-107, Lib-98 Bloc+Grn-3), and if the popular vote also showed a clear majority voted for the 2nd and 3rd place parties (currently their sum is 56% support), would Trudeau back a PM Mulcair, or allow another Harper minority to take office?

What would the NDP have to do to court Liberal support, or at least leave the door open for Liberal support? The NDP is still trending up now, but assuming the Con vote is quite solid, the NDP has to “be nice”, kind of, to the Liberals during the campaign, even as they try to win a majority at Trudeau's expense.

This does not preclude Mulcair verbally going for Trudeau's jugular in the debate to replace the AWOL Harper.

Trudeau might not have the necessary credibility to bargain on behalf of the Liberals were he to deliver such poor results. I don't see the Liberal executive being satisfied with playing second fiddle to the NDP. Their power lies in resurrecting the Liberals which would not be helped by a coalition with the NDP. Individual MPs could be pursuaded to support the NDP for a chance of being in power.

Sun, 2015-06-07 20:41

#27

Marco C

adma wrote:

Anyone who thinks the "Adam Vaughan" wing of the Liberals will willingly side with the Cons in order to stop the seat-topping-but-no-majority NDP is off his/her blooming rocker, I'll tell you that.

The "Adam Vaughan" wing of the party???? With all due respect F*** them!

The "Adam Vaughan" wing of the party had no problem voting lockstep with the Tories on C-51, had no problem talking out of both ends of their mouths on the issue, has no problem with not standing against everything we as Canadians believe in. Adam Vaughan for all his talk about being progressive is anything but, he's progressive when it's convenient and conservative then it's not, typical liberal.

Sun, 2015-06-07 20:49

#28

NorthReport

Exactly.

Thanks Marco C.

This is a very weird thread.

Mon, 2015-06-08 07:51

#29

adma

Marco C wrote:
The "Adam Vaughan" wing of the party had no problem voting lockstep with the Tories on C-51, had no problem talking out of both ends of their mouths on the issue, has no problem with not standing against everything we as Canadians believe in. Adam Vaughan for all his talk about being progressive is anything but, he's progressive when it's convenient and conservative then it's not, typical liberal.

"Voting with" is one thing. Supporting a stop-the-NDP coalition in the event that the NDP wins more seats than the Cons is another. (At least the Clegg Lib Dems had the excuse of supporting the leading party.)