An accord, NOT a coalition, between Grit-NDP-Bloc (Part 2)

nicky wrote:

One benefit of a coalition would be that it would stop Harper's campaign to stack the judiciary with conservative ideologues as outlined in the Globe on the weekend and as reflected in his appointment of Russell Brown today to the SCC. The judicial appointments could hardly be worse.

Agreed.

And I just had a disturbing thought.

Harper has now appointed 7 out of 9 SCC judges, and it hasn't helped his cause much. What if he's, like, "Ok, the courts are trying to seize power away from the elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons... so I'm not appointing any more judges?"

Where's pookie... could a PM do that?

Anyway, back to business. Harper's gotta go. Accord, coalition, majority, minority, whatever it takes.

 

JKR wrote:

All Harper wants is for the NDP to be 1 seat short of a majority and he will continue as PM.

Not if Elizabeth May has anything to say about it. She is open to a coalition to get Harper out. Her one seat would give the NDP a majority.

sherpa-finn wrote: Surely the more interesting conversation is trying to define / anticipate the shared elements (and prospective deal breakers) of an accord between the NDP and Liberals.  Reform of the electoral system... repeal (?) of c-51.... repeal of income splitting.... national child-care program ...???

Unionist wrote: It would be interesting, but I'm not so sure it's relevant here. Coalitions are about power. Policy is optional. Can you recall the shared platform elements of the Liberal-NDP-BQ attempted coalition of 2008 - other than preserving the parties' per-vote subsidy? Not saying there weren't any - just saying they escaped my radar. There was an agreement on who would be PM, how many cabinet seats and which ones, etc. But that's about power.

I would like to think that the concerned parties have learned some lessons from the 2008 debacle ... and realise that in the prevailing context any accord / coalition will need to be framed as the mechanism by which (a majority of) Canadians take back their Gov't. after the Harper years of minority rule.  In other words, it cannot be seen once again as politicians and their parties acting primarily in their own self-interest.

To communicate that message compellingly, the concerned parties will need (IMHO) to present a compelling list of popuar / populist changes or initiatives they will launch in the first year of the accord. In the circumstances, I doubt that the parties could reach agreement on any MAJOR policy initiatives (re First Nations, pharmacare, pipelines, etc.) but I do think it should be possible for teh Libs +NDP to agree on a number of populist measures that would secure for the new gov't both breathing space and some measure of public support. 

Like launching an inquiry on MMIW, re positioning Canada in the world (end of Iraq/Syria mission; Climate Change commitments for December, etc.).  Oh, and cancelling that anti-communism monument in Ottawa.  And the Mother of Canada monstrosity in Cape Breton. In many cases these may be more symbolic than substantive. But I think the symbolism of 'change is possible' will be important.

mark_alfred wrote:

Trudeau himself has said he opposes a coalition.  There's no reason to doubt him.

That isn't all he said. He was forced to rule it out unequivocally in order to avoid the press misrepresenting his words even more than they already had when they claimed he said he would consider a coalition if Mulcair wasn't the leader which was clearly not the intent of his words. He was saying that it wasn't something he was considering in the moment but that he wouldn't speculate on the future as conditions could change.

Trudeau named the specific barriers, the Sherbooke Declaration and more interventionist policies. As a pundit pointed out long ago those issues are easily negotiable.

The NDP is still deliberately using the misinformation as a point of attack. They deliberately avoided asking directly if they could set pu the satellite offices as they did. I am appalled by how they handled the harassment of their two mps. I see no reason to trust the NDP or Mulcair any more than you do the Liberals and Trudeau.

I can't stand Eve Adams but she is right about Trudeau being underestimated. The first debate is in a little more than a week. August 6th will be here soon and then we should have considerably more to talk about.

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Trudeau himself has said he opposes a coalition.  There's no reason to doubt him.

That isn't all he said. He was forced to rule it out unequivocally in order to avoid the press misrepresenting his words even more than they already had when they claimed he said he would consider a coalition if Mulcair wasn't the leader which was clearly not the intent of his words. He was saying that it wasn't something he was considering in the moment but that he wouldn't speculate on the future as conditions could change.

Trudeau named the specific barriers, the Sherbooke Declaration and more interventionist policies. As a pundit pointed out long ago those issues are easily negotiable.

The NDP is still deliberately using the misinformation as a point of attack. They deliberately avoided asking directly if they could set pu the satellite offices as they did. I am appalled by how they handled the harassment of their two mps. I see no reason to trust the NDP or Mulcair any more than you do the Liberals and Trudeau.

I can't stand Eve Adams but she is right about Trudeau being underestimated. The first debate is in a little more than a week. August 6th will be here soon and then we should have considerably more to talk about.

Please stop this nonsense. Trudeau said nothing about "in the moment " Those are your words and he said nothing of that nature. Mark is right. Trudeau has said he is "unequivocally opposed" to a coalition. He has also recently said it would reduce the options for Canadians ( which isn't a bad argument). This is in addition to his earlier comments, some of which you mentioned. Now I understand why some people are skeptical about anything this guy says given his track record on his commitment to open nominations. However, unless we have some evidence indicating that he is being totally disingenuous we should probably simply accept what he is saying, he really really doesn't like the idea of a coalition with the NDP. Now I continue to believe he will have to find an arrangement to support a minority NDP gov. but a coalition, not according to Trudeau.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudea...

Trudeau is telling the truth. Unless he's not. In which case, he's not lying. He's just afraid of saying what he really means because someone will use that against him. And if you use Trudaeu's own words against him, he didn't mean to use those words. The true part is only the words that make Trudeau look good.

Trudeau always tells the truth, even when he lies. It's everyone but Trudeau's fault. 

The Liberals could back an NDP minority government on a case by case basis without entering into a coalition or signing some kind of governing agreement. So Trudeau's position does not preclude the NDP from governing even if the NDP comes in 2nd place and the Liberals come in 3rd. In such a case what would be most important would be that the public support the idea of a second place party replacing the Conservatives.

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

All Harper wants is for the NDP to be 1 seat short of a majority and he will continue as PM.

 

NorthReport wrote:

Not one person has provided evidence in Trudeau's or Liberals' behaviour that even remotely suggests they would support an NDP government.

Please wake us up when you discover something.

Not talking here about what people want to have happen, just what will happen according to Liberal behaviour.

 

Except for the King-Byng Affair in 1925, the experience in Canadian politics, federally and provincially, has been that the party that wins a clear plurality of the votes forms the government.

There has never been a single time in Canadian history, provincially or federally, that the Liberals have allowed a 2nd place conservative party to form government.

Not only have they allowed it -- they were the second place party.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

I wouldn't doubt that Trudeau (or whoever is giving him his marching orders) is dead serious about not supporting an NDP government. I just don't think he'll have the backing of all of his MPs. There are already a few Liberal MPs who are mad they were strongarmed into supporting Bill C-51. 

The NDP can probably get away with one seat shy of a majority, but they probably need more than just a strong minority.

Trudeau did not say he would not support an NDP government -- he said he would not enter a coalition

There is one scenario that we have not discussed -- in fairness to North Report we should.

I already have said: if the BQ and the CPC have a majority then Harper can dare the other parties to work with the BQ to bring him down (reprise 2008).

If the Liberals and NDP have a majority between them and the NDP is ahead of the CPC -- Trudeau can support an NDP government just by not voting it down. The GG would accept Mulcair's bid to lead a minority as a matter of course.

But if the Liberals and NDP are second and third, things get very interesting. This is where Trudeau may have boxed himself into a corner.

If the NDP is second and the Liberals refuse a coalition, despite the two parties together forming a majority, Trudeau probably thinks he can support an NDP minority without a coalition but he might be wrong.

Mulcair could be told that he cannot take power without a coalition. The GG could claim that in these times a coalition is required in order to see through the economic challenges. At this point Trudeau's leadership is likely over. Harper and Johnson might demand this in part to put the knife into Trudeau and end his career but it is also the best political move for the Conservatives given Trudeau's stupidity (saying he would not do a coalition).

If the GG said that a second place party must have a coalition to take over, I think there would be some arguments for that. A coalition may be required to provide the case and the investment from enough MPs to have the government stable. Given the animus between the Liberals and the NDP it could be a fair statement that we would need a coalition to trust these two parties with joint power. They must both be invested with success.

Then, if Trudeau feels blocked by his no-coalition-with-NDP promise he has the following options:

1) Resign and let another person lead the party into coalition (his career is over)

2) Refuse to support anyone and effectively force new elections (probably devastating for the LPC as it would be a run-off between the NDP and CPC for government)

3) Join a so-called "unity" coalition with the CPC for the next budget (very dangerous as the LPC would wear this when an election does come)

4) Support the CPC case by case (since they are the plurality party) -- This is the nightmare scenario for the LPC where they support a CPC government even though they could have worked with the NDP. Trudeau may in his heart prefer this but the politics would also be extremely bad. The next election would be devastating for the Liberal party.

5) Break his promise and enter a coalition with the NDP -- given how much he has repeated this, it will make him look foolish and possibly be the last straw for his career.

While Trudeau is trying to decide the Liberal party would erupt in camps each pushing for one of the options.

So-- the wrench in all this could be in the hands of Harper's appointee. If he accepts the Liberals to support the NDP case-by-case as Trudeau seems to prefer, Trudeau may win his gamble -- not having to support the CPC and not entering a coalition with the NDP.

But if the GG intervenes and demands a coalition as a condition of accepting the second party to take power, Trudeau will have screwed himself. He would then have the option between destroying his career or destroying his party.

And the interesting thing about all this -- Harper knows this and the GG is a very smart Conservative with knowledge of constitutional law. He would know how to put the screws to Trudeau and call his no-coalition bluff.

In the end the Liberals might end up hoping more of their seats turn NDP than leave them in this position.

It is a little early to make bold predictions.

I'll leave the predictions to JoJo Savard.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

There is one scenario that we have not discussed -- in fairness to North Report we should.

I already have said: if the BQ and the CPC have a majority then Harper can dare the other parties to work with the BQ to bring him down (reprise 2008).

If the Liberals and NDP have a majority between them and the NDP is ahead of the CPC -- Trudeau can support an NDP government just by not voting it down. The GG would accept Mulcair's bid to lead a minority as a matter of course.

But if the Liberals and NDP are second and third, things get very interesting. This is where Trudeau may have boxed himself into a corner.

If the NDP is second and the Liberals refuse a coalition, despite the two parties together forming a majority, Trudeau probably thinks he can support an NDP minority without a coalition but he might be wrong.

Mulcair could be told that he cannot take power without a coalition. The GG could claim that in these times a coalition is required in order to see through the economic challenges. At this point Trudeau's leadership is likely over. Harper and Johnson might demand this in part to put the knife into Trudeau and end his career but it is also the best political move for the Conservatives given Trudeau's stupidity (saying he would not do a coalition).

If the GG said that a second place party must have a coalition to take over, I think there would be some arguments for that. A coalition may be required to provide the case and the investment from enough MPs to have the government stable. Given the animus between the Liberals and the NDP it could be a fair statement that we would need a coalition to trust these two parties with joint power. They must both be invested with success.

Then, if Trudeau feels blocked by his no-coalition-with-NDP promise he has the following options:

1) Resign and let another person lead the party into coalition (his career is over)

2) Refuse to support anyone and effectively force new elections (probably devastating for the LPC as it would be a run-off between the NDP and CPC for government)

3) Join a so-called "unity" coalition with the CPC for the next budget (very dangerous as the LPC would wear this when an election does come)

4) Support the CPC case by case (since they are the plurality party) -- This is the nightmare scenario for the LPC where they support a CPC government even though they could have worked with the NDP. Trudeau may in his heart prefer this but the politics would also be extremely bad. The next election would be devastating for the Liberal party.

5) Break his promise and enter a coalition with the NDP -- given how much he has repeated this, it will make him look foolish and possibly be the last straw for his career.

While Trudeau is trying to decide the Liberal party would erupt in camps each pushing for one of the options.

So-- the wrench in all this could be in the hands of Harper's appointee. If he accepts the Liberals to support the NDP case-by-case as Trudeau seems to prefer, Trudeau may win his gamble -- not having to support the CPC and not entering a coalition with the NDP.

But if the GG intervenes and demands a coalition as a condition of accepting the second party to take power, Trudeau will have screwed himself. He would then have the option between destroying his career or destroying his party.

And the interesting thing about all this -- Harper knows this and the GG is a very smart Conservative with knowledge of constitutional law. He would know how to put the screws to Trudeau and call his no-coalition bluff.

In the end the Liberals might end up hoping more of their seats turn NDP than leave them in this position.

Mulcair could also force the issue at that time by publicly calling upon the Liberals to join him in a coalition.

jjuares wrote:

Mulcair could also force the issue at that time by publicly calling upon the Liberals to join him in a coalition.

Yes he could but if Trudeau has option (according to GG) to support Mulcair on a case by case, it is only an argument but not a condition. Mulcair cannot demand a coalition if the Liberals are offereing support on votes and there is a mechanism for that. Mulcair can simply say that Canada would have a more stable government but that is a difficult thing to press becuse it would be talking down his own government.

The real hammer here is the GG who can demand Harper get to govern absent a coalition between the second and third parties.

But as I say if the GG says a coalition is required for stability -- Trudeau is effectively screwed. I doubt he is best buds with this GG.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

It is a little early to make bold predictions.

I'll leave the predictions to JoJo Savard.

I am not making predictions here -- just laying you the meaning and possibility for various scenarios.

The point is Trudeau may think he can avoid coaltions AND avoid supporting Harper but if he lands third and the NDP lands second this may be out of his hands and into the hands of a Conservative GG.

I wasn't disagreeing with you.

There's some good news, Harper's 'Christmas in July' bid to buy the election isn't working out. I think the debates will shake things up.

It's clear that the Harpercons have nothing in their arsenal besides attacking their competition like petulent children.

I think both Mulcair and Trudeau have enough ammunition to do some real damage to the Harper agenda. Who'll be the better debater,we'll soon find out.

I still believe that the Liberals will back up an NDP minority even if it ends Trudeau's political career.

I also think that Trudeau's political ambitions will weigh in and he'll be looking to save his own skin.

This is not a prediction. I just see a little light at the end of the tunnel. The death of the Harper era is real. Let's not forget that.

Forgot to add that I think Mulcair is the better debater of the 2. I hope he hammers Harper incessantly.

 

Finally a voice of reason. 

Thank you and agreed! 

And why is the term "coalition" being used as Wilf had it correct in the title?

Alberta shows why there will be no NDP-Liberal entente, despite Nathan Cullen's mistimed musing

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2015/07/alberta-shows-why-t...

David is right on the money. There is no indication now, and there never has been, that the Liberals will ever support the NDP. We saw how the Liberals acted in 2008-2009. What has changed apart from the Liberals being substantially less popular in Canada? Just not gonna happen.

All the more reason why the only chance for Mulcair to become prime minister is if the NDP receives a majority government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9309_Canadian_parliamentary_dis...

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jjuares wrote:

Mulcair could also force the issue at that time by publicly calling upon the Liberals to join him in a coalition.

Yes he could but if Trudeau has option (according to GG) to support Mulcair on a case by case, it is only an argument but not a condition. Mulcair cannot demand a coalition if the Liberals are offereing support on votes and there is a mechanism for that. Mulcair can simply say that Canada would have a more stable government but that is a difficult thing to press becuse it would be talking down his own government.

The real hammer here is the GG who can demand Harper get to govern absent a coalition between the second and third parties.

But as I say if the GG says a coalition is required for stability -- Trudeau is effectively screwed. I doubt he is best buds with this GG.

When I mean " force" I meant pressure from within his party as well as voters who supported him. Force was a bad choice of words. But I do think a public offer would put enormous pressure on Trudeau. And if absent a coalition that meant Harper got to continue governing that would be quite calamitous for the Liberals. The NDP' s new slogan would be a vote for Trudeau is a vote for Harper. And it would essentially be true. Which is why Trudeau would be compelled to be in discussion with Mulcair.

Even if he does, do you think he can whip all 30-60 Liberal MPs to not so much as give Mulcair a confidence vote?

It's a rock and a hard place. If supporting the NDP is a kiss of death, then what kind of kiss do they get from supporting the PM they've been campaigning against?

The evidence is that the Liberal party has lended a confidence vote to countless minority governments over the years. 

The question is whether the Liberal party would give a vote of confidence to a minority even if it were NDP, or if they'd give a vote of confidence to the Conservatives even if they didn't win the election. Let alone whether the entire party would even be unified in their decision one way or the other.

We can guess at the answer, but it's pretty ignorant to pretend that you know for sure.

The reason why the order of the parties matters is that while many of you are asking if Trudeau will support the NDP or the Conservatives you are forgetting teh Liberal penchant for fence sitting.

I thinkn if the NDP have the most seats the Liebrals will not vote to bring them down -- they won't want to cause an election either. This is how their support will be. But if the Conservatives have the most seats and the NDP is close the Liebrals are in a difficult position -- they can do the same thing  -- nothing and let Harper govern.

With all the discussion about Liberal active support none of you are acknowledging the passive tolerance of the fist party. While people may be angry at them -- this position of effectively supporting the party with the most seats is the least costly to the Liberals. If it is the Conservatives it will create problems -- certainly. The Idea tha tthe Liebrals would pass the first party NDP to support the second CPC is not very credible. The NDP would govern.

But if the Conservatives have more seats the Liberals could deny support to anyone -- letting the CPC govern.

Alternately there is one possible cover for a Liberal-Conservative government . This would be a trumped up crisis for either a stimulus budget in the context of an economic emergency or a national security crackdown with a trumped up security crisis. Either of these could lead the Cons and Liberals to pretend they are getting together for stability in emergency.

It would take soemthing like that -- but that is possible.

My guess is the Liebral plan will be to not defeat whichever party has the most seats -- so Mulcair could govern with a minority but it would be one based on tolerance not support.

NorthReport wrote:

Using the term coalition is adding to the confusion here.

We are talking about whether or not Liberals will support the NDP. The Liberals never had and the Liberals never will support the NDP as it is the kiss of death politically for the Liberals to do so. We clearly saw that in 2008-2009. The Liberal game plan is always the same campaign on the left (hug the NDP) and govern on the right. What has changed - nothing.

On election nite if Mulcair does not get a majority, Trudeau's first call will be to Harper to reassure Harper that he will remain as PM. You can take that to the bank.

So if the NDP gets 160 seats, the Conservatives get 140 seats, the Liberals get 35 seats, the BQ gets 2 seats, and the Greens get 1 seat; Trudeau will force at least 30 of his 35 MP's to keep Harper in power and rob the NDP of their election win?!?

NorthReport wrote:

Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2005 so Liberals forced an election.

They definitely worked together in the spring of 2005 to get concessions in the budget for the NDP. Remember that?

I've never been clear on the details of what went wrong in November. Layton said something about how Martin wouldn't block increased health care privatization - but what, exactly? Do you know?

Quote:

Liberals refused to work with the NDP in 2008-2009 and defeat Harper.

That's a strange generalization. They had a signed coalition deal in December 2008, and they sure as heck looked as if they presented it to the G-G looking to form a government. It was Harper, and the turncoat Michaelle Jean, who nixed that one. Only then did the Liberals revert to their more traditional colours and enable Harper to rule unchallenged for more than two years.

Quote:

Liberals are to blame for Harper being in power since February 6, 2006, more than 9 long years.

That's cool. But if push comes to shove, would you rather blame them for another 4 years of Harper after October, or push them kicking and screaming into some arrangement with the NDP (and others) that will put Harper in the trash?

I was disappointed in Climenhaga's rather dogmatic take on things. I can't recall how he reacted to the 2008 coalition. It would be interesting to see if he analyzed the situation similarly at that time.

 

JKR wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Layton made it impossible for Martin to accept a deal and NDP supporters knew it and argued over it.

If Trudeau wants a coalition all he has to do is insist that Mulcair drop the Unity Act during the coalition period. I very much doubt that Mulcair would insist on pushing the Unity Act as a condition. On everything else they could make deals.

Mulcair and Trudeau can pretty well count on there not being a referendum on Quebec separation during the next four years.

Exactly, so Mulcair would have no reason to make a stand on it.