Could we tweet storm Singh asking him:
If the Conservatives win a minority government would you be willing to form a majority government with the Liberals?
What other ways could this be worded?
Would it help to tweet storm media outlets?
Is tweeting even the right way to communicate? (I never use it)
I've said in other threads that I think the Liberals would absolutely prop up a Conservative minority rather than enter into a coalition with the NDP. However, let's stipulate for the moment that I'm wrong about that, that the Liberals would accept a coalition to stay in power, and that getting the idea into the media sphere via tweet storm is the way to do it.
In that case, I'd say we need to be careful about phrasing (as you seem to agree). If the Conservatives win the most seats, they will immediately go to the press and say they "won a minority government". They'd describe any attempt to form a coalition as a "coup by the losers", just like they did in 2008. So let's leave out the phrase "win a minority government". Let's say "If the Conservatives win more seats than the Liberals, are you willing to enter into a coalition with the Liberals?"
However, I think this will backfire in a couple of ways. The Tories will say "See, we need a majority!", and the Liberals will say the same thing. Tweeting at media outlets will be useless. The question of coalitions has already arisen on panels of pundits, and everyone wants to wait and see what the results are first. Besides, I predict this will be a debate question.
Asking during the debate won't get as much attention. Of course the Liberals would prop up the Conservatives. That is the point of asking the question.
The Conservatives used those lines in BC already. Look who's in power.
Even the Conservatives know they can't win a majority. I doubt they can win a minority either so even if they say "see we need one" they won't get it.
The other thing they will loudly proclaim is that it is undemocratic which is perfect because there is a response.
In Canada the person who has the support of the majority of the house, therefore the majority of Canadians, becomes Prime Minister.
Any two parties willing to work together to represent more Canadians are more democratic than a party that wants to rule alone.
Certainly 10 tweets would do nothing. 10 thousand tweets would get some attention. 100,000K tweets even more. To make something like this work there has to be enough people willing to take a chance they wasted 10 seconds of their lives tweeting. We have to actively make things go viral to make a splash.
We have to learn how to word things to maximize support.
In Canada the person who has the support of the majority of the house, therefore the majority of Canadians, becomes Prime Minister.
Wrong! Since WWII the PM has been supported by the majority of Canadians voters only twice, John Diefenbaker in 1958 and Brian Mulroney in 1984. All other PM's have ruled despite a majority of people having voted for other parties.
Yeah. FPTP "majorities" very rarely represent the majority of voters. That why the Conservatives can win FPTP elections even when the majority of voters wouldn't even consider voting for them.
At this point, it seems the election will result in either a Liberal or Conservative minority. Does having the NDP or Bloc proclaim their support in advance of voting date really change things?
I think the NDP could announce that if they hold the balance of power they would negotiate with the other parties and would be open to helping the second place party form a government if they offered the NDP a deal that comes closest to meeting the objectives of the NDP. The NDP could make it clear that a party does not have the right to govern if it has just a plurality of MP's.
If the Conservatives win a minority government would you be willing to form a majority government with the Liberals?
Let's be clear about how this works. NOBODY wins government on election night, despite what the media and party leaders might say.
As long as the existing Prime Minister gets re-elected in their riding, they have the right to test the confidence of the house by presenting a throne speech and trying to get it to pass in the house. If they can do that, they get to remain the Prime Minister.
If, due to the party loyalties of the MP's that get elected (note that political parties don't appear anywhere in our constitution) it's clear that the existing Prime Minister will not be able to command a majority in the HoC, then they usually resign on election night, conceding the election to the leader and party with the most seats (though nothing in our constitution requires them to do so). It is then up to the Governor-General to ask another MP to seek the confidence of the house. Usually this is the leader of the party with the most seats (they being the most likely to be able to secure the confidence of the house), though it can technically be any MP that the Governor General chooses. If the Governor General thinks that the leader of the party with the most seats in the House is unfit to be Prime Minister, they actually have the power to prevent them from seeking to form a government.
In the event that the Conservatives were to win a plurality of the seats in the House, but the Liberals and NDP had a majority between them, Justin Trudeau would not have to immediately resign as Prime Minister. He could attempt to form a Liberal minority government by presenting a throne speech and trying to get it passed in the House.
If Trudeau were to choose that option, The NDP would then have two choices: vote for Trudeau's throne speech, allowing him to form another minority government; or vote against it, ending his Prime Ministership. Then and only then would the Governor General be able to call on Erin O'Toole to try and form a government.
As long as the existing Prime Minister gets re-elected in their riding, they have the right to test the confidence of the house by presenting a throne speech and trying to get it to pass in the house. If they can do that, they get to remain the Prime Minister.
They don't even need that. A government has to maintain confidence of the House, but as long as Trudeau kept control of his caucus, he could wait and run somewhere else, or appoint himself to the Senate, or even (if the Supreme Court agreed) be PM from outside Parliament.
A Trumplike Prime Minister of Canada would appoint himself Governor General and then appoint himself as Prime Minister for life! He would get the Queen to agree by giving her his golf course in Scotland!!
Let's be clear about how this works. NOBODY wins government on election night, despite what the media and party leaders might say.
Let's be clear, the average person on the street is not going to listen to you say all that. That right there is the crux of the problem of the left. We want to be 100% accurate, dot the i's and cross the t's.
The point of this is not to educate Canadians on exactly how our system works.
It is to communicate the idea that our FPTP system need not result in the lead party forming government.
If other parties hold the majority of seats they can legitimately take power and in so doing would be representing the majority of Canadians.
When Dion and Layton made their deal the move was unheard of. Harper was able to convince people it would be illegitimate, undemocratic, contrary to Canadian values. Many years have past and we now have a recent example in BC. That makes it much more difficult to attack the notion as undemocratic.
When the right came up with the slogan "right to work" they didn't argue with themselves that it was stupid because of course everyone has the right to work. Everyone knows that. They didn't explain their idea to death.
We know the idea that we have to sell oil to pay for the transition is utterly bankrupt but it works because most people have idea how much the green transition will cost or whether or not oil money is needed. Macro economics is certainly beyond me. I can't really know.
Bottomline, it's plausible so many people will have a "common sense" opinion that we probably will need a lot of money so getting the most we can from our oil that we are selling requires the pipeline.
Others such as myself go with the "common sense" conclusion that building a new pipeline is contrary to greening the economy, and that greening the economy is an economic boost not something that has to be "paid for" through some other means.
I'm not suggesting we mislead but we must dramatically shorten and simplify messaging. (defund the police is a terrible slogan").
I don't think it is possible but if the Conservatives did squeak out a minority the first thing Singh should say is that he is willing and able to make Trudeau PM. No elaboration. Nothing else. Just that. Watch media explode with questions and hour long interviews with pundits explaining what it all means.
Many people would be thinking "He can do that? How? Why would he say that? O'Toole won."
Sometimes you have to wait for people to ask questions before answering them.
If other parties hold the majority of seats they can legitimately take power and in so doing would be representing the majority of Canadians.
The government represents all Canadians not just a majority of Canadians. Representatives in the House of Commons represent all their respective constituents. Political parties represent themselves.
The problem with the NDP supporting the Liberals over the Conservatives is that it alienates people who dislike the Liberals. It also makes the NDP seem like the Liberals junior partner.
If other parties hold the majority of seats they can legitimately take power and in so doing would be representing the majority of Canadians.
The government represents all Canadians not just a majority of Canadians. Representatives in the House of Commons represent all their respective constituents. Political parties represent themselves.
It doesn't matter.You are missing the point. When you get into details you invite argument at which point you have lost most people's attention. You have one to three sentences to grab the attention of someone and make your point.
The problem with the NDP supporting the Liberals over the Conservatives is that it alienates people who dislike the Liberals. It also makes the NDP seem like the Liberals junior partner.
Then NDPers need to grow up and quit pretending they could win this election with a majority and actually do what is best for Canadians. Doing what is best for Canadians might even win them more support.
Singh could even say, that though the numbers aren't with him, if the NDP were to win government they would form a coalition with the Liberals because it is the closest thing to PR they can get within our FPTP system.
If other parties hold the majority of seats they can legitimately take power and in so doing would be representing the majority of Canadians.
The government represents all Canadians not just a majority of Canadians. Representatives in the House of Commons represent all their respective constituents. Political parties represent themselves.
In that case, no need for PR because the government already represents all of the people.
In that case, no need for PR because the government already represents all of the people.
All governments, democratic and non-democratic represent all the people of their respective states. Canada could be run by a dictatorship and the Canadian government would still officially and legally represent all the citizens of Canada. I think we're using different definitions of the word "representation."
In that case, no need for PR because the government already represents all of the people.
All governments, democratic and non-democratic represent all the people of their respective states. Canada could be run by a dictatorship and the Canadian government would still officially and legally represent all the citizens of Canada. I think we're using different definitions of the word "representation."
It makes no difference. Canadians couldn't care less what various definitions mean. Many Canadians don't feel represented by our government. Are you going to explain to them that they are represented.? To what end?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/federal-election-2021/liberals-attacks-o...
While the Liberals’ support appears to be trending in a positive direction, Nanos said the opposite is true for the NDP.
Gee, I wonder why that happened. Could it be all this talk about how weak the Liberals are?
How can we assuage voters fears of the Conservatives so they will feel safe voting NDP even if the Conservatives might win a minority?
Then NDPers need to grow up and quit pretending they could win this election with a majority and actually do what is best for Canadians. Doing what is best for Canadians might even win them more support.
Singh could even say, that though the numbers aren't with him, if the NDP were to win government they would form a coalition with the Liberals because it is the closest thing to PR they can get within our FPTP system.
The Liberals don't want to form a coalition with the NDP. If the NDP says it wants to form a coalition with the Liberals, people will say the NDP should disband and merge with the Liberals.
The Liberals don't want to form a coalition with the NDP. If the NDP says it wants to form a coalition with the Liberals, people will say the NDP should disband and merge with the Liberals.
We aren't talking to the Liberals we are talking to voters who want to vote NDP but feel they have to vote Liberal or risk having a Conservative government.
What do you have to say to them?
How can we assuage voters fears of the Conservatives so they will feel safe voting NDP even if the Conservatives might win a minority?
Under FPTP it is extremely difficult to assuage those voters. That's why the Liberals support FPTP over PR and why the NDP supports PR over FPTP.
Under FPTP it is extremely difficult to assuage those voters. That's why the Liberals support FPTP over PR and why the NDP supports PR over FPTP.
And yet those voters prefer FPTP. They will assuage themselves by voting Liberal unless the NDP can think of a better idea.
We aren't talking to the Liberals we are talking to voters who want to vote NDP but feel they have to vote Liberal or risk having a Conservative government.
What do you have to say to them?
What I would say to them and to all the voters is that if no party wins a majority the NDP will then negotiate with the Liberals and Conservatives to see which party they will help form the next government.
And yet those voters prefer FPTP. They will assuage themselves by voting Liberal unless the NDP can think of a better idea.
FPTP is the only system the voters know so the status quo FPTP has an advantage. The only way we can get rid of the negative affects of FPTP is to get rid of FPTP. The NDP should tell voters they will do their utmost to get rid of FPTP. That in negotiations with the Liberals and Conservatives they will use getting rid of FPTP as a bargaining chip.
I don't think it is possible but if the Conservatives did squeak out a minority the first thing Singh should say is that he is willing and able to make Trudeau PM. No elaboration. Nothing else. Just that. Watch media explode with questions and hour long interviews with pundits explaining what it all means.
Many people would be thinking "He can do that? How? Why would he say that? O'Toole won."
Sometimes you have to wait for people to ask questions before answering them.
And, if Justin takes him up on that, the first thing he should say when they meet is..."ok...here's the deal- we'll keep you in power, in exhange for your commitment that the FIRST bill you will introduce is for the establishment of PR on a model of OUR choosing".
It'd be worth it to hear Justin explain, to his caucus, desperate to stay in power by any means, why he would rather take the Liberals into opposition, possibly long-term opposition, than to agree to that.
Telling the NDP to grow up is extremely offensive. You've used the same taunt against Québec solidaire. I forget whether you've also taken aim against Projet Montréal. None of those parties exist for their opponents. I'm not about to write to the would-be leader of that angryphone party to tell him to grow up; he is full of it. Of course he wouldn't listen; why should he? Political parties belong to their members and supporters, or at least one hopes so.
I don't think it is possible but if the Conservatives did squeak out a minority the first thing Singh should say is that he is willing and able to make Trudeau PM. No elaboration. Nothing else. Just that. Watch media explode with questions and hour long interviews with pundits explaining what it all means.
Many people would be thinking "He can do that? How? Why would he say that? O'Toole won."
Sometimes you have to wait for people to ask questions before answering them.
And, if Justin takes him up on that, the first thing he should say when they meet is..."ok...here's the deal- we'll keep you in power, in exhange for your commitment that the FIRST bill you will introduce is for the establishment of PR on a model of OUR choosing".
It'd be worth it to hear Justin explain, to his caucus, desperate to stay in power by any means, why he would rather take the Liberals into opposition, possibly long-term opposition, than to agree to that.
Yes absolutely. Putting him on the spot is what it ia all about. Trudeau would have to wear it. Next election NDP could say we were AGAIN ready to work with the Liberals for the sake of Canadians but they don't want to share. They want to rule. Vote NDP.
Maybe it isn't ALL about optics but it seems like a great deal of it is. The left has to get better at optics.
Telling the NDP to grow up is extremely offensive. You've used the same taunt against Québec solidaire. I forget whether you've also taken aim against Projet Montréal. None of those parties exist for their opponents. I'm not about to write to the would-be leader of that angryphone party to tell him to grow up; he is full of it. Of course he wouldn't listen; why should he? Political parties belong to their members and supporters, or at least one hopes so.
If you think "grow up" is extremely offensive you are indeed a delicate flower. I can assure you I have no intention of writing the leader of the NDP or any other leader and if I did I wouldn't waste it saying "grow up" I would use logic.
I am a member of QS and I vote for them, so the party belongs to my by your own words, and I vote NDP and PM. If you genuinely support these parties you should avoid alienating me.
You think I'm too rude to political parties you support, and I think you are overbearing and self-righteous. We all have our faults.
Do you have any interest in the discussion or did you just pop in to correct my manners?
I don't think it is possible but if the Conservatives did squeak out a minority the first thing Singh should say is that he is willing and able to make Trudeau PM. No elaboration. Nothing else. Just that. Watch media explode with questions and hour long interviews with pundits explaining what it all means.
Many people would be thinking "He can do that? How? Why would he say that? O'Toole won."
Sometimes you have to wait for people to ask questions before answering them.
Winning the election and actually froming a government are two different things. You're right that most people would probably consider O'Toole to have "won" the election if the Conservatives get the most seats. However, if O'Toole wins the most seats but not a majority, the fact that most people would consider him to have "won" the election could have little bearing on if and when he gets to "form a government" and seek the confidence of the House.
Because no matter the reuslt of the election, Trudeau remains Prime Minister until he either resigns or loses a confidence vote in the House.
Thanks, Left Turn! And it's good to hear from you.
Second, Singh, when asked Wednesday here, did not — as he did in 2019 — rule out working with the Conservative leader. He now sounds as if he is keeping all his options open should he be leading a minority government or working with one as a supporting partner.
“We’ll look at that when it happens and make decisions that are in the best interest of Canadians,” Singh said Wednesday.
https://globalnews.ca/news/8140954/analysis-jagmeet-singh-wouldnt-back-s...
He can only wish for the good old days when Laurier could run in Quebec and Saskatchewan, in the same election, and get elected in both seats. The good news for Western Canadians is that he fulfilled his campaign pledge and the first university in the West was in Saskatoon. Laurier never sat in that western seat since the people of his home riding in Quebec also voted for him. Just a little history. Great Canadian trivia question, "what riding has elected the most PM's .As long as the existing Prime Minister gets re-elected in their riding, they have the right to test the confidence of the house by presenting a throne speech and trying to get it to pass in the house. If they can do that, they get to remain the Prime Minister.
They don't even need that. A government has to maintain confidence of the House, but as long as Trudeau kept control of his caucus, he could wait and run somewhere else, or appoint himself to the Senate, or even (if the Supreme Court agreed) be PM from outside Parliament.
"He can do that? How? Why would he say that? O'Toole won."
You're right that most people would probably consider O'Toole to have "won" the election if the Conservatives get the most seats. However, if O'Toole wins the most seats but not a majority, the fact that most people would consider him to have "won" the election could have little bearing on if and when he gets to "form a government" and seek the confidence of the House.Because no matter the reuslt of the election, Trudeau remains Prime Minister until he either resigns or loses a confidence vote in the House.
Good point, but refusing to resign would result in the same puzzlement and still require NDP support to keep power at the first confidence vote. Once lost, O'Toole would get his chance to approach the GG and convince them they have enough support to form government.
Immediately, before he has a chance to approach the GG, the NDP should say, we are willing to form a coalition government with the Liberals but it seems they prefer to work with the Conservatives.
The point of all of this is not actually forming a coalition government with the Liberals which I can't see as being particularly successful. Nor is it to promote PR or teach Canadians about how our system of government works in a detailed manner.
The point is to force the Liberals to reveal themselves and increase the reputation of the NDP as putting people first.
I don't think it is possible but if the Conservatives did squeak out a minority the first thing Singh should say is that he is willing and able to make Trudeau PM. No elaboration. Nothing else. Just that. Watch media explode with questions and hour long interviews with pundits explaining what it all means.
And, if Justin takes him up on that, the first thing he should say when they meet is..."ok...here's the deal- we'll keep you in power, in exhange for your commitment that the FIRST bill you will introduce is for the establishment of PR on a model of OUR choosing".
I answered "absolutely" but I spoke too quickly. I'm changing it to absolutely not. The idea is to improve the reputation of the NDP not trash it.
This actually exemplifies my problem with PR. It's all about the parties wheeling and dealing for what they want, what will advance their interests. Screw what people want.
The demand should be what the 99% want and that isn't PR. It's paternalistic to insist on what they think is best for everyone.
So what do the 99% want? Genuine universal pharmacare not the fake pharmacare Trudeau promised and didn't deliver on.
I considered basic income but that is too easy to refuse on the basis that the country can't afford it even though we know that it can.
I'm sure people smarter than me could come up with other ideas but it must be things that are non-controversal and would make Trudeau look really bad for refusing.
Maybe something to do with the sale of arms to questionable regimes.
Though we should aim for the 99%, realistically 70% support would be fine.
I've said it before. If only we had a political party willing to cater to the 99%. They'd win no problem.
I had another idea. If Trudeau wins but we are lucky and it's a minority, before he has a chance to approach the GG, encourage Singh to say up front that Trudeau does not have his confidence and to get it he needs to sit at the table.
Trudeau will be able to stay in power if the NDP has the balance of power. If the NDP and Liberals combined have more than 170 seats.
