Please continue posting in the more appropriately named 'The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition' thread Tks

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
Please continue posting in the more appropriately named 'The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition' thread Tks

Minoriry governments have brought us the Canada Pension Plan and universal healthcare legislation

Not too shabby!

Let's usually hear it for minority governments

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2017/07/28/Canada-Should-Pledge-Urgent-Action...

NorthReport

Turn off and tune out Canad's mainstream media as it's time for Canada to start moving to the left again

 Here is an excellent article about the birth of medicare which just shows what can be accomplished against the people who presently control Canada

There is no reason why Canada can't have universal dental care, universal pharmacare, universal education including apprenticeship and universal housing. And there is a very simple way to achieve this which is the redistribution of wealth through Canada's taxation system Did you know that Canada is fifth in the countries on planet earth with millionaires on a per capita basis Now you know why the rich get all their tax breaks with trust fund kids like Trudeau running our governments

 

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/the-birth-of-medicare

NorthReport

Seeing as the Liberals and the Conservatives are deadlocked in the latest polling are we about to enter the realm of minority government once again in Canada?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin/don-m...

NorthReport

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh campaigns in Montreal 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/jagmeet-singh-campaigns-montreal...

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Seeing as the Liberals and the Conservatives are deadlocked in the latest polling are we about to enter the realm of minority government once again in Canada?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin/don-m...

Unfortunately with FPTP it would only takes a 3-point gain by either the CPC or LPC to put one of them into phoney FPTP "majority" territory.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Seeing as the Liberals and the Conservatives are deadlocked in the latest polling are we about to enter the realm of minority government once again in Canada?

https://www.ctvnews.ca/ctv-news-channel/power-play-with-don-martin/don-m...

Unfortunately with FPTP it would only takes a 3-point gain by either the CPC or LPC to put one of them into phoney FPTP "majority" territory.

It is also possible that the Liberals could get a majority with a record low percentage -- given that Green, PP, BQ and NDP may all have extreme inefficient vote totals and the Conservatives may even as well to a lesser degree as they pile up votes in Alberta and other strongholds. the Liberals could be in majority terrirtory now.

Also your point, well taken of course, ought to be in the ocntext that margin of error in any of these polls pretty much already puts a party there.

NorthReport

Right now the Liberals only have to lose 12 seats in October and we will have a minority government

NorthReport

In number of seats it looks like Liberals, Conservatives, Le Bloc & the NDP will finish 1 to 4 in this order, however with the Liberals losing ground, it does not appear that even the the Libs and the NDP together will have enough votes to form government. What's to stop the Liberals and Conservatives from supporting each other? My hunch is that is where we are headed unless there is a significant change between now and October 21. How many hundreds of times did the Liberals vote to support Harper when he had a minority government? Houston - we have a problem, and probably a very serious one, as it appears that working people in Canada are going to get screwed over, once again.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

It is too early to forecast what the seat totals are going to be. Relax! Have a Twinkie!

NorthReport

1o days to go 

Here comes the heavy duty Liberal attack ads against minority governments

Maybe Singh could negotiate an NDP coalition government (yes that means Cabinet positions) for a definite period say 2 years only if they hold balance of power in next Parliament

R.E.Wood

When you look at CBC's latest seat projections the Cons are winning the most seats and the potential for alliances look complicated:

Con 140

Lib 135

BQ 33

NDP 25

Green 4

PPC 1

So it's interesting to consider which combinations of those numbers combine to form 170 and a minority government? I'm disappointed that in this scenario the Lib + NDP + Green seats aren't enough...  Lib + NDP + Green = 164

https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/ 

 

NorthReport

All the more reason for Canadians to support the party that is moving upwards in the polls Momentum is everything and Jagmeet Singh and the NDP have it in spades. It’s essential for working Canadians  (students, seniors, and working Canadians) that the NDP either end up in first place and form government, which is possible, or at least hold the balance of power. 

NorthReport
NorthReport

A coalition government eh!

Presumably the number of cabinet ministers each party would get would be decided by the percentage of popular vote each party received of their combined popular vote

 

 

KarlL

NorthReport wrote:

A coalition government eh!

Presumably the number of cabinet ministers each party would get would be decided by the percentage of popular vote each party received of their combined popular vote

 

 

So, this raises an interesting question: if you believe that a Liberal-NDP coalition government is possible (I happen to believe it is) and you see that as a desirable outcome, then what is the best way to vote for a Liberal-inclined voter in Regina—Lewvan or Essex?  What is the best way for an NDP-inclined voter to vote in Burlington or Egmont?

Maybe you can't answer that today, as you see an outright NDP or Liberal victory as still possible.  But let's say that it is next week on the verge of voting day and the polls have done what they are going to do, you have made allowances for turnout expectations, and there are clearly still seats that are head-to-head NDP v. Conservative fights and seats that are head-to-head Liberal v. Conservative fights?

If it is a stark choice between a Conservative government (possibly with Bloc support) and a Liberal-NDP coalition or an NDP-Liberal coalition for that matter, do you tailor your vote to make a coalition outcome more plausible, which means in either the Liberal or NDP case, voting for your own party if it can win the seat and your potential coalition party if your own party cannot win the seat?

NorthReport

That’s has been and always will be a Liberal trap. Liberals promised to bring in PR and didn’t. Very often one is told vote for Liberals in this riding because they have best chance of defeating a Conservative only to find out later on the Liberal came in third. Unfortunately Liberals lie way too much to be believed. You need to vote for the party you support. If you do that more Canadians will get the government they want. 

KarlL

DP

KarlL

KarlL wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

That’s has been and always will be a Liberal trap. Liberals promised to bring in PR and didn’t. Very often one is told vote for Liberals in this riding because they have best chance of defeating a Conservative only to find out later on the Liberal came in third. Unfortunately Liberals lie way too much to be believed. You need to vote for the party you support. If you do that more Canadians will get the government they want. 

I am not actually talking about voters on Babble.  People here are pretty well-informed and will and should do whatever they want to - and they may not see a coalition with Liberals as a more desirable outcome than other considerations, or at all.  Neither am I talking about some broad pitch of "only we can stop the Conservatives", which I agree is a tired and predictable Liberal (though not exclusively so) line that can lead to voters mistakenly voting for a party that isn't actually in contention in their riding, or even to their second-choice party defeating their first-choice party if they are badly misinformed. 

My question was a different and more precise one, as in what is a well-informed voter to do in ridings where the plausible contenders are not from their first choice party - if and only if their primary motivation is to secure a coalition government.

NorthReport
NorthReport
jerrym

KarlL wrote:

I am not actually talking about voters on Babble.  People here are pretty well-informed and will and should do whatever they want to - and they may not see a coalition with Liberals as a more desirable outcome than other considerations, or at all.  Neither am I talking about some broad pitch of "only we can stop the Conservatives", which I agree is a tired and predictable Liberal (though not exclusively so) line that can lead to voters mistakenly voting for a party that isn't actually in contention in their riding, or even to their second-choice party defeating their first-choice party if they are badly misinformed. 

 

The problem with this Liberal argument is that they have had decades to deal with many of the key issues in this campaign and accomplished almost nothing in this regard.

On climate change they signed the Kyoto Accord in 1997 and have failed to live up to that and subsequent promises in every election since. That includes Trudeau's 2015 and 2019 promises. According to the auditor-general, the Trudeau Liberals did not even meet those targets for 2020 (http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_otp_201803_e_42883.html). In addition, according to Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand, based on current emissions the Trudeau government is almost certainly going to blow by the 2030 targets  (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/environment-commissioner-julie-gelfand-...)

On electoral reform, Trudeau personally broke his promise to end electoral reform. "Trudeau promised, repeatedly and unequivocally, that he would get rid of the current first-past-the-post voting system in time for 2019. The Liberal platform said the 2015 election would be the last for the traditional way of electing MPs: there’d be reform legislation before Parliament within 18 months." (https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/the-liberals-broke-...)

On childcare they have promised childcare in every election for 26 years and failed to deliver every time. In 2017 the Trudeau Liberal budget continued its never-ending promise to implement a national child care program that began with the 1993 Chretien government and has continued to be promised in every election since. However, the 2017 budget was nowhere near enough for a national childcare program. "For advocates who have waited years for the federal government to kick in cash to help expand and subsidize child-care services, the money is seen as a start, but far from enough to cover the whole country." (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jeremy-broadhurst-gerry-butts-tr...)

On pharmacare, the Liberals have been promising this for 22 years. The Trudeau Liberals are repeating its 2015 health care promises that it failed to implement during their four years in office, repeating a pattern that they have been following for decades of failing to live up to their health care promises, especially when it comes to pharmacare, which they have promised in every election for the last 22 years.  "It’s just 11 cents a day, or $3.35 a month. For that little money, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he can guarantee you a family doctor, improve mental health care coverage and bring in a national pharmacare strategy." (https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-recycles-a-heal...)

The NDP, on the other hand, plans to intruduce a universal pharmacare program that provides free prescription pharmaceuticals to everyone while keeping costs low by negotiating prices at the national level in order to save over $4 billion a year in costs. If this seems too good to be true, keep in mind that every country that has a universal medicare program in the world, except Canada, includes universal pharmacare within their universal medicare program and much lower pharmaceutical costs as a result of this. So, why more than 50 years after the creation of Canadian medicare has no Liberal or Conservative government done the same? Is the answer that they are too beholden to the pharmaceutical industry giants?

On indigenous issues, the Liberals have said the right things but have failed to deal with it effectively for the many decades that they have been in office. Instead, the Trudeau Liberals have appealed the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling for the tenth time in three years. Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry Bellegarde has called the Trudeau Liberal decision "beyond unacceptable". While the Liberals say that they want to compensate these First Nations children, that is not what the court documents say. They are appealing for a dismissal of the human rights tribunal's ruling, not an extension beyond the December deadline the tribunal in order to implement the decision. They are playing hardball, saying one of the problems is that the children should be in court telling the judge how they have been harmed by their apprehension. Many of the children are under six years of age. As a result of the Trudeau Liberals failure to produce meaningful results over their four years in office, indigenous support for the Liberals has been cut in half according to a September poll. 

The 40% support that the Liberals received in the 2015 election among indigenous people had fallen to 21% in an Environics poll conducted for Aboriginal Peoples Television Network (APTN) that was conducted between Sept. 4 and 12,one month before the Liberal government appeal was launched (https://election.ctvnews.ca/support-for-liberals-plummets-among-indigeno...). The appeal of the child welfare case noted in the last paragraph will almost certainly further decrease Liberal party support among First Nations.

On dental care versus tax cuts, Liberal and Conservative middle and low income tax cuts have little credibility as they primarily favour the rich, offer very little to middle and lower income Canadians and cost much more than the NDP dental program promise, which despite its much lower costs saves these income groups much more money. 

While both tax plans, which cost a staggering $5 to 6 billion, are being advertised as helping Canadians in lower income brackets, both tax giveaways ultimately provide lower income Canadians with insignificant benefits — especially when there are more effective ways for Canadians to get more bang for their tax dollars. ...

An analysis of the Liberal tax plan by UBC professor Kevin Milligan shows it would indeed “lift 38,000 Canadians above the poverty line.” But according to Statistics Canada, 3.4 million Canadians lived below the poverty line in 2017.

In other words, the Liberal plan would only reduce poverty by around 1%. ...

In all, the Liberal plan would mean savings of up to $137 for families with incomes under $40,000, while the Conservative plan would mean savings of up to $65. ...

The NDP is currently proposing to expand health care coverage to include dental care. The plan would make trips to the dentist free for Canadians with household incomes under $70,000, with a sliding co-payment for households earning between $70,000 and $90,000. ... 

While the Liberal and Conservative tax plans cost $5-6 billion per year, in contrast, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the dental plan would cost $850 million per year, all while delivering significantly larger savings to lower and middle income Canadians than an ineffective tax giveaway. (https://pressprogress.ca/the-liberals-and-conservatives-both-say-their-t...)

On tax fairness, the Trudeau Liberals have made a token effort to collect money from tax evaders, aiming to collecting roughly 1% of  the wealthy's money hidden for tax purposes, money that could fund many social programs. The Wikipedia title of the following article says it all "Corruption in Canada".

"Canada has a very high rate of tax evasion.[27] Individuals and companies with high net worths use offshore tax havens to illegally avoid paying tax. Canadians have $170 billion sitting in the world's top ten tax-haven countries.[28] Canadian federal and provincial governments lose an estimated $8 billion a year to tax havens alone.[28] Black market or under-the-table commercial activity also contributes to tax avoidance losses. The full cost of tax evasion is an estimated $80 billion per year. ...

Canada's lax regulations make it one of the top[clarification needed] countries for anonymous shell companies,[31] which are often used for tax evasion, money laundering, terrorist financing and organized crime. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_Canada)

The Liberals have failed to deal effectively with the housing crisis, which began when the Chretien Liberals stopped funding cooperative housing in the 1990s. The Trudeau Liberals have been ineffective in tackling the sky-high housing prices that has been accelerated by the foreign buyer problem in our three major cities. As a result, "Vancouver has the highest average monthly rent for a two-bedroom home ($2,915)" (https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/average-median-monthly-rent-rates-vancou...) and many are now going homeless or living in extremely substandard conditions.

Based on the Liberals history, voting Liberal would only continue the same pattern of Liberal promises that were never lived up to and were never intended to. Voting Liberal would signal to them that they can continue to fail to live up to their campaign promises and expect to get elected. In other words, it would mean we would get more broken promises in this election and in subsequent elections. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

KarlL wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

A coalition government eh!

Presumably, the number of cabinet ministers each party would get would be decided by the percentage of the popular vote each party received of their combined popular vote

 

 

So, this raises an interesting question: if you believe that a Liberal-NDP coalition government is possible (I happen to believe it is) and you see that as a desirable outcome, then what is the best way to vote for a Liberal-inclined voter in Regina—Lewvan or Essex?  What is the best way for an NDP-inclined voter to vote in Burlington or Egmont?

Maybe you can't answer that today, as you see an outright NDP or Liberal victory as still possible.  But let's say that it is next week on the verge of voting day and the polls have done what they are going to do, you have made allowances for turnout expectations, and there are clearly still seats that are head-to-head NDP v. Conservative fights and seats that are head-to-head Liberal v. Conservative fights?

If it is a stark choice between a Conservative government (possibly with Bloc support) and a Liberal-NDP coalition or an NDP-Liberal coalition for that matter, do you tailor your vote to make a coalition outcome more plausible, which means in either the Liberal or NDP case, voting for your own party if it can win the seat and your potential coalition party if your own party cannot win the seat?

The problem with that idea is that the Liberal Party and most of the Liberal partisans who have called for or sometimes demanded, strategic voting-and please don't take this personally, KarlL, because you're not THAT type-have never done so in the spirit of respect and equality it would require.  To really make that work, you'd have to get an agreement with all parties involved that each party would absolutely agree to call on its supporters to vote for the strongest, most electable candidate who opposed the Conservative candidate.   The Liberals have never accepted that strategic voting should work that way-they argue that every left-of-center voter in the country should always feel obligated to vote specifically for the Liberal candidate, and they have accepted that, in areas where the Liberals can't win seats, that that means Liberal supporters should agree to vote for the NDP or the Green or, in BQ-Con marginals in Quebec, for the BQ candidate.  And there have been many instances where the Liberals have actively worked against the idea of strategic voting in areas where they were weak-like Bob Rae's bloody-minded insistence on campaigning actively in Saskatchewan during the 2011 campaign when they knew they had no chance of gaining any seats there and that all raising the Liberal vote in Con-NDP marginals would be to help the Con candidate get elected, 0r 2004, when Paul Martin called on all progressives to vote Liberal and, in so doing, probably gave the Cons five seats in B.C. that would otherwise have gone NDP-an outcome which resulted in the Liberals and NDP together not having enough seats between them to create a majority coalition.

For your idea to work, the Liberals would have to find some way of sincerely stating "we've handled these situations totally wrongly in the past, we admit that, and we will change.  From now on, we will call on OUR supporters to 'vote strategically' in ridings where we can't win, just as we have demanded that supporters of other parties do the same for Liberal candidates in ridings where their parties can't win."

KarlL, can you imagine any Liberal leader, at any point in the past, ever doing anything remotely like that, ever displaying that kind of honesty and integrity?

KarlL

Ken Burch wrote:

 

KarlL, can you imagine any Liberal leader, at any point in the past, ever doing anything remotely like that, ever displaying that kind of honesty and integrity?

No, to be honest.  I could not imagine any Liberal leader doing that and yes, Liberals have been the biggest sinners on taking this tack and using a shotgun when a scalpel was called for.  Short of a formalized non-aggression pact, it would be quite hard to put into practice for any party, not least because they have nominated candidates in every seat and what would it say to those nominees?  

I am more thinking about private individuals.  There have been reciprocal vote-sharing/trading mechanisms in the past in which I would have participated but for the oddity that despite voting 23 times, federally and provincially, I have never lived in a riding in which the Liberal was not a head-to-head contender and in the one case where the Liberal came third, it was the incumbent and he only fell behind in the last few days and still got over 30% in a three-way split.

What I imagine, I suppose, is a riding like Gord Johns' in Courtenay-Alberni or Ruth-Ellen Brosseau's Berthier—Maskinongé.  So, in each of those I have an MP I like, who might be challenged by the Conservatives or Bloc, respectively. I don't think that I would find it very hard to vote NDP in that cirumstance, as I have done on occasion for NDP-affiliated mayoral, city council and school board candidates.  

Would I do so if I had no assurance that an NDP or NDP-inclined voter somewhere was going through the same thought process?  Probably, because I know that a vote for Gord Johns, or Ruth-Ellen Brosseau or whomever, is more likely to defeat a Conservative or Bloc Candidate.  But I would be even more likely to do so if I knew that there was likely to be a coalition government, as my vote would make that more likely and I would actually be voting for an MP  and potentially a minister in "my" government.  It is also easier because, as stated in an earlier post, I like Jagmeet Singh based on what I see and on my one and only meeting with him.

 

Pondering

 The times they are a changing. Canadians are saying they don't want either party to have a majority. Scheer is not rising as Trudeau drops. Scheer has lost the centrist vote. I am hoping this is the beginning of the end for Conservatives that I have been predicting. Even if they were to squeeze out a win this time they are going to continue bleeding support. The Liberals are far enough right for any but the most extreme right. Business need not fear the Liberals. 

Both primary parties are campaigning on fear now; Scheer warning of the dire consequences of a Liberal/NDP coalition and the Liberals warning of a potential Conservative government.

They had better both be careful or the vote may swing to the NDP to stop the Liberals and the Conservatives. If not this election one of the next two. I'll go way out on a limb and predict an NDP government by 2027.

NorthReport

Meanwhile back in the real world:

A progressive coalition governments as Jagmeet Singh suggests - Fat chance Canada!

https://www.straight.com/news/1313606/martyn-brown-progressive-coalition-government-jagmeet-singh-suggests-fat-chance-canada

jerrym

KarlL wrote:

There have been reciprocal vote-sharing/trading mechanisms in the past in which I would have participated but for the oddity that despite voting 23 times, federally and provincially, I have never lived in a riding in which the Liberal was not a head-to-head contender and in the one case where the Liberal came third, it was the incumbent and he only fell behind in the last few days and still got over 30% in a three-way split.

The problem with your answer, which is typical of virtually all the posts Liberals provide here, is that it is only concerned with voting to preserve power. It does not deal in any way with the issues and potential solutions to the problems the vast majority of Canadians are facing whether it be the increasing precarious nature of employment and income, climate change, electoral reform, childcare, pharmacare, dental care, indigenous problems, tax havens, housing described in post #21 and too many others to list. The message is vote for us because we are not Conservatives.

Many voters have concluded after decades of alternating between Liberal and Conservative governments that neither are dealing with their concerns in any effective manner. That is why neither have fallen to approximately 30% in the polls. Voting Liberal would signal to the Liberal establishment that they can continue to fail to live up to their campaign promises and expect to get elected. In other words, it would mean we would get more broken promises in this election and in subsequent elections. 

KarlL

jerrym wrote:

The message is vote for us because we are not Conservatives.

KarlL wrote:

You seem determined to read whatever you want into what I wrote.  So, just to be clear, jerrym, I do not expect you to vote Liberal, nor NorthReport, nor in fact anyone on Babble other than those who regularly vore Liberal.  I am telling you what I would do, in certain rather precise circumstances and what I expect that some other Canadians will do, in both directions. 

This is an election/post-election thread and one about potential arrangements for government in nearly certain event that there is no majority outcome.  I don't think that it is out of place for me to offer my views on the likelihood of that becoming a reality or on voting patterns that may lead to that outcome.  

 

 

NorthReport

A more appropriate titled thread is: The Impending Trudeau-Scheer Grand Coalition thread because there is no question this is what is coming, and the NDP are going to be cut completely out of any of the decision-making process. It is only when the NDP gets a majority government will they have any say in Ottawa.

How many times did the Liberals vote with Harper when he had a minority government. Was it 100 times? Was it 200 times? The Liberals voted to support Harper so often we stopped counting. Those who don't remember history will find themselves destined to repeating it.

Please don't fall for the right-wing Liberal and Conservative lies.

Our political system, just like our economic system, is rigged against Canadian working people, students, seniors, the poor, the homeless,  tenants, caregivers, grocery store clerks, and visible minorites including Indigenous Peoples. We all know it, so let's do something about it, because we can.