Justin Trudeau says he’d be open to coalition with NDP - if Thomas Mulcair wasn’t leader

241 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Pondering wrote:

This is the kind of thing that continues to erode the respect I once had for the NDP. 


I doubt if the NDP can recover from losing Pondering's respect.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, seriously, I'll speak for myself, I don't believe you ever respected the NDP any more then I believe you ever voted NDP. From perspective, I am not concerned about how you feel about the NDP. But, thanks for letting us know that nothing has changed. Just in case we either were wondering what you thought, or missed it. What a self absorbed post.

mark_alfred

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

This is the kind of thing that continues to erode the respect I once had for the NDP. 

I doubt if the NDP can recover from losing Pondering's respect.

Means the NDP must be getting even more progressive then.  Good.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, seriously, I'll speak for myself, I don't believe you ever respected the NDP any more then I believe you ever voted NDP. From perspective, I am not concerned about how you feel about the NDP. But, thanks for letting us know that nothing has changed. Just in case we either were wondering what you thought, or missed it. What a self absorbed post.

It's not just my respect you lose when you twist the truth to manipulate people's response. Trudeau said nothing offensive. The MSM headlines are dishonest and misleading but you embrace them. 

It seems bias in the MSM is fine as long as Trudeau is the target. 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Astonishing arrogance: everything Trudeau says is perfect. If others don't agree they must be biased. Got it. Actually got it way too many times.

jjuares

Is Trudeau running away from any coalition talk because he is afraid the Cons will once again make it an issue just like the did with Ignatieff and Dion?

jjuares

Dp

jjuares

Dp

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Is Trudeau running away from any coalition talk because he is afraid the Cons will once again make it an issue just like the did with Ignatieff and Dion?

Hard to say what he is or is not afraid of. Certainly there seems to be more political calculation of his every move than any thought to what is the right thing to do. This usually comes from political fear, This is what the recent pattern looks like.

A politician who acts out of fear never stops doing so even once elected -- every move becomes calculated -- politics becomes more important than anything else and principle is out the window. Eventually things get justified that should never be. Democracy and openness is seen as a threat. That is what we have with Stephen Harper.

It looks like what exactly what we would get with Trudeau.

indigo 007 indigo 007's picture

"Trudeau noted that the two parties have major differences of opinion on economic and constitutional issues."

 If this be the case then trudeau should start defining the differences especially so in that he has been criticized within his own party for lack of policy definition.  If the two parties can't work together let's hear the specifics. He has the bad habit of speaking in bland generalities and avoiding specifics.

To cast aspersions on Mulcair's leadership is really cheap and puerile as Mulcair has proven himself as party leader and leader of the opposition.  Trudeau on the other hand flounders on and is a very long way from consolidating his leadership and many within and outside the party are having  serious concerns about his ability to to do so.  It is not at all surprising his star quality is starting to fade six months before the election- Hype must ultimately be followed by substance. 

ilha formosa

Pondering wrote:
He has been very clear that the NDP and Liberal policies and approach to unity differ too greatly for a coalition. It is feasible that under a new leader policies would change therefore it would change the equation.

And so there is nothing in common between the Liberals and NDP? Not even a little patch of ground for them to meet and agree to put their differences aside for 4 years, then get on with the work of governing and reversing the damage the Harpercons have done to Canadian democracy? It’s not as though a coalition would mean an immediate launch into defining the federal government threshold to start negotiating Quebec independence.

*IF* not all Liberals are corporate puppets, maybe there are some among them who could start to break ranks and talk about being amenable to a coalition, once their party replaces their leader.

nicky

Justin is afraid that he will give Harper an issue if he is open to a coalition. He supports c-51 on the same basis, not that it is wrong but because of political expedience.

Mulcair said very aptly that Harper tried to scare the Canadian public by bringing in C-51 and the first person he succeeded in scaring was Justin Trudeau.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, seriously, I'll speak for myself, I don't believe you ever respected the NDP any more then I believe you ever voted NDP. From perspective, I am not concerned about how you feel about the NDP. But, thanks for letting us know that nothing has changed. Just in case we either were wondering what you thought, or missed it. What a self absorbed post.

It's not just my respect you lose when you twist the truth to manipulate people's response. Trudeau said nothing offensive. The MSM headlines are dishonest and misleading but you embrace them. 

It seems bias in the MSM is fine as long as Trudeau is the target. 

 

Is this also snark Pondering?

Aristotleded24

Remember when the Republicans portrayed John Kerry as "weak" and a "flip-flopper" during the 2004 election? Anyone get the sense that that portrayal of Kerry is still stronger and more decisive than the behaviour Trudeau is currently showing?

Charles

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Remember when the Republicans portrayed John Kerry as "weak" and a "flip-flopper" during the 2004 election? Anyone get the sense that that portrayal of Kerry is still stronger and more decisive than the behaviour Trudeau is currently showing?

 

I'm glad someone pointed that out, I had been wondering the same thing (ironic as the guy who beat Kerry shares The Hair's basic qualifcations for high office. His Daddy.) The Hair is the most vapid serious contender for PM since Stockwell Day; the least qualified since Audrey McLaughlin; and the weakest in history. 

indigo 007 indigo 007's picture

Trudeau insists on giving both Harper and Mulcair the ammunition to blow him and his party out of the water . This election is showing signs of becoming a two way race with Trudeau stumbling  from one bad decision to another.

Aristotleded24

Charles wrote:
The Hair is the most vapid serious contender for PM since Stockwell Day; the least qualified since Audrey McLaughlin; and the weakest in history.

That's an unfair comparison. Day is a former Pentecostal Pastor who served as a Minister of Labour in the Alberta government, and McLaughlan was a consultant and has served with NGOs and has travelled internationally in that capacity.

Charles

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Charles wrote:
The Hair is the most vapid serious contender for PM since Stockwell Day; the least qualified since Audrey McLaughlin; and the weakest in history.

That's an unfair comparison. Day is a former Pentecostal Pastor who served as a Minister of Labour in the Alberta government, and McLaughlan was a consultant and has served with NGOs and has travelled internationally in that capacity.

Regardless of his qualifcations, Day was as vapid as the day is long; Audrey's background was uniquely lacking in anything that would have qualified her for leadership. But I genuinely believe The Hair trumps both, so I will concede that point happily. 

terrytowel

Chantal Hebert said on At Issue last night

"I think the large part of the Liberal brain trust at least believes that if there is a minority Conservative government, then they are second. A nice second. It's in their advantage to allow the NDP to have the angst of back to third place, maybe Mulcair leaving and having an election in 18 months that they can win. Rather than go into an arrangement, that may or may not be shaky. That may give the NDP a reason to live after this setback. I know that voters think that this should happen. I'm totally not convinced, even if I believe it is possible, it is a good idea. Totally not convinced the Liberal mindset is to think like this at this point."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/At+Issue/ID/2664479496/

Shows why she is a member of Canada's best political panel on television.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Chantal Hebert said on At Issue last night

"I think the large part of the Liberal brain trust at least believes that if there is a minority Conservative government, then they are second. A nice second. It's in their advantage to allow the NDP to have the angst of back to third place, maybe Mulcair leaving and having an election in 18 months that they can win. Rather than go into an arrangement, that may or may not be shaky. That may give the NDP a reason to live after this setback. I know that voters think that this should happen. I'm totally not convinced, even if I believe it is possible, it is a good idea. Totally not convinced the Liberal mindset is to think like this at this point."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/At+Issue/ID/2664479496/

Shows why she is a member of Canada's best political panel on television.

Yup. Commentators are just trying to force the Liberals to show their cards early plus they need a narrative to have something to write about.

Pondering

indigo 007 wrote:

Trudeau insists on giving both Harper and Mulcair the ammunition to blow him and his party out of the water . This election is showing signs of becoming a two way race with Trudeau stumbling  from one bad decision to another.

Could you quote what Trudeau said that was wrong?

Aristotleded24

terrytowel wrote:
Chantal Hebert said on At Issue last night

"I think the large part of the Liberal brain trust at least believes that if there is a minority Conservative government, then they are second. A nice second. It's in their advantage to allow the NDP to have the angst of back to third place, maybe Mulcair leaving and having an election in 18 months that they can win. Rather than go into an arrangement, that may or may not be shaky. That may give the NDP a reason to live after this setback. I know that voters think that this should happen. I'm totally not convinced, even if I believe it is possible, it is a good idea. Totally not convinced the Liberal mindset is to think like this at this point."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/At+Issue/ID/2664479496/

Shows why she is a member of Canada's best political panel on television.

So she confirms what we've been saying that the Liberals would rather have absolute power or take their marbles and go home, even at the expense of a Conservative government.

That's much worse than the Conservatives. At least the Conservatives have a policy programme they are willing to implement and believe in it to the extent that there are lines in the sand they will not cross when it comes to governing.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Chantal Hebert said on At Issue last night

"I think the large part of the Liberal brain trust at least believes that if there is a minority Conservative government, then they are second. A nice second. It's in their advantage to allow the NDP to have the angst of back to third place, maybe Mulcair leaving and having an election in 18 months that they can win. Rather than go into an arrangement, that may or may not be shaky. That may give the NDP a reason to live after this setback. I know that voters think that this should happen. I'm totally not convinced, even if I believe it is possible, it is a good idea. Totally not convinced the Liberal mindset is to think like this at this point."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/At+Issue/ID/2664479496/

Shows why she is a member of Canada's best political panel on television.

Yup. Commentators are just trying to force the Liberals to show their cards early plus they need a narrative to have something to write about.

Seriously Pondering, the Liberals don't have any plan other then getting power and keeping it. They'll say whatever it takes to get power and keep it, and YOU KNOW IT. Stop treatiing all of us on this board like we're idiots. Its insulting.

Sean in Ottawa

terrytowel wrote:

Chantal Hebert said on At Issue last night

"I think the large part of the Liberal brain trust at least believes that if there is a minority Conservative government, then they are second. A nice second. It's in their advantage to allow the NDP to have the angst of back to third place, maybe Mulcair leaving and having an election in 18 months that they can win. Rather than go into an arrangement, that may or may not be shaky. That may give the NDP a reason to live after this setback. I know that voters think that this should happen. I'm totally not convinced, even if I believe it is possible, it is a good idea. Totally not convinced the Liberal mindset is to think like this at this point."

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/At+Issue/ID/2664479496/

Shows why she is a member of Canada's best political panel on television.

More context from the discussion is useful: Coyne's comments are important there -- while he does not see damage at this point he does say that the no coalition stance is an untenable position Liberals have to take because their strategy is to scare NDP voters into voting Liberal. However, he also said it would not sit well following an election for the Liberals to not take the Conservatives down when they can.

 We must remember that the NDP has always resisted this message from the Liberals that they can only change government by voting Liberal. What Trudeau has done having spoken as he did, is open the door for the NDP to go after him on this. The NDP can well press the Liberals on the idea of letting Harper stay in government unless the Liberals can go it alone. The NDP can make the point that it must be the lead party in the opposition if there is any hope of taking Harper down as the Trudeau Liberals will refuse to govern unless it is entirely on their own terms but an NDP plurality over the LPC could force their hands.

It is a gamble on the part of the Liberals that they can make a case that such talk would drive NDP support back down to where it used to be. It is a gamble the Liberals may well lose.

This is an apparent contradiction for Trudeau where he says he will respect whatever Canadians create as a parliament but refuse to work in a coalition with another party that could well end up with a seat count that could approximate his. Trudeau’s comments are perhaps appropriate where the third party is expected to be less than a third of the second party but make no sense at all when the parties are close in seats.

It is fair to say as well that when Mulcair said he would not do a coalition with the Liberals, the Liberal party looked like it would be in the same position the NDP had been in past years when the Liberals had previously taken this position (of governing alone in a minority).

Both parties should have accepted that if they are closer in seats they would need to govern together. The NDP accepts this and Trudeau does not. In fact Trudeau is presuming that if he gets 85 seats and Mulcair gets 84 that Trudeau should govern alone expecting the NDP to vote for every confidence vote or he would effectively enable the Conservatives to continue to govern. Trudeau somehow thinks that the public would accept telling a party that could be only one seat short of his party that it would have no role in government. Having cast his Senators out, Trudeau cannot do what his father did – bring in Senators to provide representation where he did not get elected. To say that he would ignore a large NDP caucus in crafting a balance of representation in cabinet is absurd. He must be called on this.

The chance of the NDP getting more seats than the Liberals is no more remote than the Liberals beating the Conservatives with a majority. The Liberals do not get to govern if they do not have a majority without either NDP or Conservative support. Support is negotiated and things are offered to other parties as a part of that. Trudeau is effectively suggesting that he would rather work with the Conservatives than the NDP. He may not realize it (as often he seems to misunderstand the meaning of his own words), but this is the only conclusion you can draw,

So the key here is that what the Liberals are missing (and the panel did not acknowledge), that the positions of the parties are different than they have been historically. The NDP if it had 20 seats to a Liberal 150 would not be expecting a role in government but it is unrealistic to presume that the NDP with a much higher number of seats would be satisfied simply voting for Liberal policies without a more direct role. In this, Trudeau's position makes little sense as it does not reflect a realistic view of the most likely composition of the next House.

Pondering

The only situation in which a coalition is necessary is if Harper wins a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a minority government he can follow the practice of usual minority governments in Canada and form his cabinet from elected Liberal MPs. If he proposes legislation and his government is defeated MPs and parties will answer to the public in the election that would follow.

No matter how small a minority Trudeau wins unless his legislation has some seriously fatal flaw the NDP will be as forced to support it just as the Liberals were forced to support Conservative legislation.

Either that or the NDP and Conservatives can force another election and see who Canadians blame for it.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

The only situation in which a coalition is necessary is if Harper wins a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a minority government he can follow the practice of usual minority governments in Canada and form his cabinet from elected Liberal MPs. If he proposes legislation and his government is defeated MPs and parties will answer to the public in the election that would follow.

No matter how small a minority Trudeau wins unless his legislation has some seriously fatal flaw the NDP will be as forced to support it just as the Liberals were forced to support Conservative legislation.

Either that or the NDP and Conservatives can force another election and see who Canadians blame for it.

 

Oh brother! This must be snark, right?

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering to answer your question directly (you can see longer explanation above) what Trudeau is doing wrong is to assume he can govern alone in a minority in a situation where he does not triple those of the other party he is seeking support from.

The old days when the Liberals could assume they would get at least three times the NDP in seats they could "dare them to bring him down" or "govern as if with majority" and say the NDP is at fault if it does not work. In the current situation as leader of the third party with a lead in the polls (assuming we believe or think that will be sustained) in the single digits, Old assumptions don't apply. The public would think the Liberals arrogant and stupid to either refuse to govern or refuse to offer the NDP partnership if the seats were close. The NDP is now in a position to point that out.

Mulcair's previous refusal to work with the Liebrals was in the context of similar math a long way from an election. No party in Canadians history while sitting a distant third in the House, and with a small lead over the opposition parties, has ever categorically  said they would refuse a coalition.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

The only situation in which a coalition is necessary is if Harper wins a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a minority government he can follow the practice of usual minority governments in Canada and form his cabinet from elected Liberal MPs. If he proposes legislation and his government is defeated MPs and parties will answer to the public in the election that would follow.

No matter how small a minority Trudeau wins unless his legislation has some seriously fatal flaw the NDP will be as forced to support it just as the Liberals were forced to support Conservative legislation.

Either that or the NDP and Conservatives can force another election and see who Canadians blame for it.

 

Absolutely wrong. What you are saying reflects the extreme of Liberals entitlement and arrogance.

To expect the votes of another party almost the same size as your in the House without any representation in government is a fantasy. It has never been done. In fact give me a single viable global example of this.

Minority parliaments do this when the leading party is domnant and needs suppot form a minor party -- not when the leading party has only a handful of seats over the supporting party.

You are also forgetting that the public expects regional representation in cabinet. Trudeau senior used Senators once to do this. Trudeau could not expect the NDP to prop him up with almost the same number of seats leaving little or no governing representation in the areas they did best. For him to use Senators that he kicked out of his caucus is laughable.

In this context categorically refusing a coalition is stupid.

Your suggestion that the public would support the Liberals in refusing the NDP getting members in cabinet in a context where the parties are close, is absurd. In fact voters would expect and demand this.

Rememebr the last coalition failed on BQ involvement but the NDP had a much smaller caucus than they would be expected to get this time -- yet they were very much expected to have cabinet posts.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

The only situation in which a coalition is necessary is if Harper wins a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a minority government he can follow the practice of usual minority governments in Canada and form his cabinet from elected Liberal MPs. If he proposes legislation and his government is defeated MPs and parties will answer to the public in the election that would follow.

No matter how small a minority Trudeau wins unless his legislation has some seriously fatal flaw the NDP will be as forced to support it just as the Liberals were forced to support Conservative legislation.

Either that or the NDP and Conservatives can force another election and see who Canadians blame for it.

 

If Trudeau with only a handful of seats over the NDP denied the NDP participation in government, I think that discussion would go extremely bad for him.

Would not take long before the word arrogant sticks to him the way it stuck to his father. Just like bad judgement and a tendency to say stupid things already sticks to him now.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The only situation in which a coalition is necessary is if Harper wins a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a minority government he can follow the practice of usual minority governments in Canada and form his cabinet from elected Liberal MPs. If he proposes legislation and his government is defeated MPs and parties will answer to the public in the election that would follow.

No matter how small a minority Trudeau wins unless his legislation has some seriously fatal flaw the NDP will be as forced to support it just as the Liberals were forced to support Conservative legislation.

Either that or the NDP and Conservatives can force another election and see who Canadians blame for it.

 

If Trudeau with only a handful of seats over the NDP denied the NDP participation in government, I think that discussion would go extremely bad for him.

Would not take long before the word arrogant sticks to him the way it stuck to his father. Just like bad judgement and a tendency to say stupid things already sticks to him now.

NAILED IT SEAN!

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If Trudeau with only a handful of seats over the NDP denied the NDP participation in government, I think that discussion would go extremely bad for him.

Would not take long before the word arrogant sticks to him the way it stuck to his father. Just like bad judgement and a tendency to say stupid things already sticks to him now.

Has any minority government in Canada invited another party to participate in government?

I don't think he has a tendency to say stupid things I think he is candid and confident that Canadians will see him for who he is and evaluate him on his own merits and that of his team in the form of his eventual platform.

The MSM has influence but they are also followers. Pundits don't decide the election, they don't call it any better than polsters do.

I think Trudeau and the Liberals are building up to a very strong campaign. You think Trudeau is weak and will perform poorly. Fair enough. Time will prove one of us right.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, based on some of what is being written above, there are times when I must have been really candid! Good to know.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If Trudeau with only a handful of seats over the NDP denied the NDP participation in government, I think that discussion would go extremely bad for him.

Would not take long before the word arrogant sticks to him the way it stuck to his father. Just like bad judgement and a tendency to say stupid things already sticks to him now.

Has any minority government in Canada invited another party to participate in government?

Yes.

You should study some history before you throw around your lack of knowledge.

I am not the only person who thinks Trudeau is associated with his tendency to say dumb things. I am sure the majority of his own supporters would agree. You have to be really completely biased and clueless to suggest that this has not stuck to him. You don't have to agree it is fair-- but how can you suggest that this is not attached to his reputation?

 

Brachina

 Yes, Pierre Trudeau offer Ed Broadbent a cabinate Post which Ed refused, I understand the reasons at the time, but with the benifit of 20/20 hindsight I think it was a mistake to say now.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

This talk of a Liberal-NDP coalition is hilarious. Since Paul Martin, the Conservatives and the Liberals have been pretending to compete while backing each other since 2004. Even now, Trudeau is voting for Conservative leglislation when the Conservatives have a majority! Trudeau has no NEED to vote for Tory legislation, but he wants Tories to know he loves the Conservatives so much he will vote for C-51!

There is NO STOP HARPER ACTION WITH TRUDEAU AT ALL.

How could anyone possibly think there will be a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP? There is no precedent for it. If the NDP are not in a majority position, the Liberals and Conservatives will conspire against them.

There is only NDP majority or more of the same crap we have had since 1867. The Tories and Liberals will not allow the NDP to govern unless both parties are trounced.

 

Brachina

montrealer58 wrote:

This talk of a Liberal-NDP coalition is hilarious. Since Paul Martin, the Conservatives and the Liberals have been pretending to compete while backing each other since 2004. Even now, Trudeau is voting for Conservative leglislation when the Conservatives have a majority! Trudeau has no NEED to vote for Tory legislation, but he wants Tories to know he loves the Conservatives so much he will vote for C-51!

There is NO STOP HARPER ACTION WITH TRUDEAU AT ALL.

How could anyone possibly think there will be a coalition between the Liberals and the NDP? There is no precedent for it. If the NDP are not in a majority position, the Liberals and Conservatives will conspire against them.

There is only NDP majority or more of the same crap we have had since 1867. The Tories and Liberals will not allow the NDP to govern unless both parties are trounced.

 

 

 Bingo Montreal.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

If Trudeau with only a handful of seats over the NDP denied the NDP participation in government, I think that discussion would go extremely bad for him.

Would not take long before the word arrogant sticks to him the way it stuck to his father. Just like bad judgement and a tendency to say stupid things already sticks to him now.

Has any minority government in Canada invited another party to participate in government?

Yes.

You should study some history before you throw around your lack of knowledge.

I am not the only person who thinks Trudeau is associated with his tendency to say dumb things. I am sure the majority of his own supporters would agree. You have to be really completely biased and clueless to suggest that this has not stuck to him. You don't have to agree it is fair-- but how can you suggest that this is not attached to his reputation?

I didn't realize asking a question was throwing around my lack of knowledge. I'm not ashamed of it.

The MSM has gone with that narrative so yes some people would agree with you. In evaluating what people are calling "gaffes" I don't see enough to damage him. I think once he is giving speeches on the campaign trail and defending a platform his numbers will take off and he will have a clean win if not a majority.

It comes down to what you think of Trudeau. People who think he is not very bright or gaffe prone or whatever believe that will be proven during the exposure of a campaign. I think people will see his intelligence and sincerity.

There is no reason to be discussing coalitions before the election. It plays into Harper's hands. Agreeing to a coalition could put Harper back into majority territory. But I suppose that doesn't matter as long as the NDP minimizes their own seat losses.

Sean in Ottawa

You keep pretending to be an expert. The most famous constitutional crisis involved this exact situation -- To remind you: M. King was the second party. He brought the third party in -- the Progressives into government: look up Robert Forke. 1925

And then King still had 4 times the seats.

In a case of second and third parties being really close but having majority between them the idea of the slightly smaller party being left out would make no sense - but that is what Trudeau is selling now. Unless he plans an arrangement with the Conservatives. At least they can agree on policy since they are miles apart on things like hair styles.

jjuares

The Liberal backing away from coalition is probably the "old"politics of calculation. They fear Harper using the word so they run away from it. It's much like their fear of Harper using C51. The Liberals seem to be acting out of fear now. I wonder if the sliding poll numbers are causing a lack of nerve. Ironically this acting out of fear may not arrest the slide.

wage zombie

Pondering wrote:

I think Trudeau and the Liberals are building up to a very strong campaign. You think Trudeau is weak and will perform poorly. Fair enough. Time will prove one of us right.

When pushed for any real thoughts or arguments this is all you have.  I wonder if this is what Trudeau will pitch on election eve: "I think we Liberals have built a strong campaign.  That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to have one just like everyone else."

nicky

I think that Harper can exploit Trudeau spurning a coalition. Trudeau says this is because of policy and personality differences with the NDP. Yet most commentators, like Chantal Hebert in the Star, today, are saying a coalition is likely with a weak Conservative plurality in seats.

Harper will say that given the differences that Trudeau says are unbridgeable any coalition will be chaotic and dangerous. This is a card currently being played by the Consrvatives in the UK in warning against a Labour coalition with the SNP.

As well, much of the public thinks that Trudeau is just plain lying which cannot help his flagging popularity.

Pondering

nicky wrote:
I think that Harper can exploit Trudeau spurning a coalition. Trudeau says this is because of policy and personality differences with the NDP. Yet most commentators, like Chantal Hebert in the Star, today, are saying a coalition is likely with a weak Conservative plurality in seats. Harper will say that given the differences that Trudeau says are unbridgeable any coalition will be chaotic and dangerous. This is a card currently being played by the Consrvatives in the UK in warning against a Labour coalition with the SNP. As well, much of the public thinks that Trudeau is just plain lying which cannot help his flagging popularity.

Trudeau didn't say the differences were unbridgable and he stated there were no personality issues. He praised Mulcair.

What Trudeau did say is they differ on the Unity bill and on policy. So, if the NDP says they won't push the Unity bill and they agree to the same type of moderate changes the Liberals will be going for the problem is solved.

There is no good reason for the Liberals to agree to a coalition before the election occurs.

Malcontent

The Liberals aka Con-lite are the most selfish entitled party Canada has ever known. They will not share power as they want it all for themselves and would rather have Harper run the country than form a coalition.   Hopefully Trudeau finishes third and is deposed as leader come October.  He is not his father that is for sure.  His father is probably rolling in his grave at how incompetent his son really is.

Marco C

NO what JT said is he's "unequivocally opposed to a coslition" and that "there are too many big issues on which they (Liberals and NDP) have deep disagreements" and he "Doesn't see any posibility of coalition with the NDP".

 

He has has said these differences are unbrdgable, that he's not willing to even talk with the NDP about working together together in government.

 

It's not a matter of finding common ground between the two because only one side if willing to defeat the tories.

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I think Trudeau and the Liberals are building up to a very strong campaign. You think Trudeau is weak and will perform poorly. Fair enough. Time will prove one of us right.

When pushed for any real thoughts or arguments this is all you have.  I wonder if this is what Trudeau will pitch on election eve: "I think we Liberals have built a strong campaign.  That is my opinion, and I'm entitled to have one just like everyone else."

I figure most people here are familiar with the broad outline of my thoughts. I'm frequently challenged to repeat my arguments but then I get slammed for being a Liberal cheerleader when I do.

Maybe you are right and the Liberals won't release a platform before the election or it will be weak and unappealing but I think I have good reason to believe otherwise.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-inner-circle-inside-trudeaus-economic-advisory-team/

Every few weeks through much of 2014, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau met on Parliament Hill with an eclectic group of business executives, university professors and think-tank policy wonks, along with a few of his own MPs. They would hash out economic issues—everything from income inequality to energy and the environment—for two hours or more. It was the sort of discussion of weighty matters that political image-makers are usually eager to draw attention to, often by issuing stilted photographs of their leader, brow furrowed, keeping serious company.

But the Liberals didn’t get around to formally announcing the roster of Trudeau’s economic council of advisers until almost the end of 2014—about eight months after its first meeting. Far from trying to attract maximum attention to it, they seemed to want to leave the council largely unnoticed. “What was important for us was for this group to have met a few times, to have done substantive work, before we started talking too much about it,” says Toronto MP Chrystia Freeland, who co-chairs the council with Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison. “We wanted this not to be about press releases.”

The suspicion in Ottawa whenever a politician assembles a blue-chip panel is that deep thinkers are window dressing, while the real decisions will be made by the usual partisan operatives. Assessing the influence of Trudeau’s group will have to wait until the Liberals’ 2015 election platform is unveiled. Still, members of the council say they sense real potential. “The discussions are very in-depth and tend to get into the weeds a great deal. It’s not just blue-skying from 40,000 feet,” says council member Mike Moffatt, a professor at Western University’s Ivey Business School (who also blogs on economic issues for Maclean’s).

Moffatt is among the academic specialists who, typically, lead off the council’s meetings by framing research on a hot topic. He’s a trade expert who also focuses on the economy of southwestern Ontario, likely a key 2015 election battleground. Another is University of Ottawa economist Miles Corak, an expert on “intergenerational mobility”—the chances of a kid earning more or less than his or her parents did. Corak worries about income inequality growing more entrenched in Canada. Kevin Milligan, who teaches at the University of British Columbia’s Vancouver School of Economics, was a sharp critic of a major tax-cut package Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced last fall, arguing it was the wrong time for relief largely benefiting high-income families.

Given Trudeau’s emphasis on middle-class income stagnation, it’s no surprise he’s turning to professors such as Corak and Milligan (another Maclean’s contributor) for ideas. Perhaps more intriguing are some of his council’s private sector members. George Gosbee, chief executive of Calgary-based AltaCorp Capital Inc.—who, previously, served on the economic advisory council of Jim Flaherty, Harper’s finance minister from 2006 until shortly before his death last spring—brings to the table an Albertan business perspective not often associated with the federal Liberals. “It was important for us that this be a truly national group, and so essential to have people who understood and were significant voices in the West,” Freeland says.

The biggest corner-office name on the list is also a senior Liberal partisan: Frank McKenna, currently deputy chair of TD Bank Group, and formerly the Liberal premier of New Brunswick, as well as Canada’s ambassador to the U.S. There’s also Bill Morneau, the former head of a Toronto-based human resources services and consulting company, who is nominated to run for the Liberals in a downtown Toronto riding in the fall election. Morneau stepped down as chair of the business-oriented C.D. Howe Institute last winter, after raising eyebrows by delivering a speech at a Liberal convention in Montreal, in which he accused Stephen Harper’s government of “partisan politics of the very worst kind.”

At the advisory council’s meetings, Morneau says strictly partisan considerations aren’t up for discussion. “Trudeau has very explicitly said to the council that this is not a place where we’re talking about how to politically get things done; this is a place where we’re trying to figure out what’s the right thing to do,” he says, adding, “That’s not to say there isn’t another table someplace where they’re talking about the political issues.” Freeland says Trudeau goes further than just asking the council not to talk about how to sell ideas to the voters; he actually reins them in when they veer from policy to politics. “Occasionally, we’ll get into a political discussion,” she says, “and he’ll say, ‘Look, I’m going to take care of the politics; these meetings are about what is the best thing to do.’ ”

I'm not an expert myself but I don't think it takes any stretching of the imagination to think that the people mentioned in this article plus other names added since then are going to come up with a strong economic platform. I would be shocked if they didn't.

Current economic wisdom is that national daycare helps the economy and they will want people to remember that if it were not for the Liberal government falling in 2005 we would have a national daycare program now. It also ties into income inequality which Trudeau has mentioned.

Trudeau and other Liberals have mentioned First Nations a lot. Trudeau said they need as much if not more per student in educational funding. He talks about FN being the fastest growing demographic in Canada therefore it will be an investment in our future.

On foreign policy it's obvious he wants to get Canada back into humanitarian aid and peacekeeping.

Trudeau will be selling his vision and his team's expertise.

So yeah, I think he is going to have a great platform and he will be ready to defend it.

When Trudeau won the leadership the press built a savior narrative. Then for over a year they tried to drag policy out of him. When that failed they doubled down on the "gaffes" storyline. When Trudeau's numbers improve another narrative will emerge. Media sources do have some bias but they are a lot like reality shows. As contestants fill archetypes so must politicians. It is partly the personas being projected by the politicians but it is also what the press chooses to sensationalize.

I don't think I need to be any kind of expert or pyschic to figure out the above.

In my view things are pretty dead right now. Liberal support has leveled out. It won't change much one way or another until Trudeau starts talking policy more specifically. He isn't giving the press anything to work with and that seems deliberate to me (although I could be wrong because I am not an expert). Any rise in numbers for Trudeau will be a result of Harper dropping rather than any increased support for Trudeau.

Mulcair's change in campaign team has made a noticable difference. You can be sure they would have staged the ice bucket challenge quite differently. Nevertheless the NDP numbers remain even softer than the Liberals. The platform roll-outs didn't have significant impact. Mulcair himself seems to have a solid reputation but it isn't translating into votes.

 

Liberals and Conservatives would both have to tank for the NDP to have a chance at even a minority government. I can see the Conservatives tanking and dropping to third based on bad news rolling in for Harper on the economic front and on military adventurism.

Dion and Ignatieff had fatal flaws. They were leaders people couldn't vote for. Some of you think Trudeau is another version of the same. A weak leader that won't be able to perform in a campaign. I don't agree. I think Trudeau will hit the ground running when the campaign starts in earnest. I think the Liberal party has big plans for spending all the money they have been collecting.

All of which brings me to my original point:

"I think Trudeau and the Liberals are building up to a very strong campaign. You think Trudeau is weak and will perform poorly. Fair enough. Time will prove one of us right."

Pondering

If anyone wants to explore my thoughts in greater detail by all means present your questions.

Marco C

1. I don't think Mulcair changed the campaign team, people like Brad just came back on full time bacause that was the plan, it's not an indication of desperation. Has it been a benifit maybe, but then you have to assume the NDP is simply making the compaign up on the fly which I can say is not true.

2. The campign has already begun in earnest.

 

3. The MSM had been far to kind to JT since he became leader, it isn't about narrative or selling papers, that have given him a free ride. That now 6 months befor the election thay are starting to take notice and ask questions that should have been asked long before isn't a consperacy, it's journalism and only of the most basic kind.

 

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau didn't say the differences were unbridgable

Justin Trudeau wrote:
I do not see any possibility of coalition with the NDP regardless of who the leader might be.

Justin Trudeau rules out coalition with NDP after saying he may be open to it

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau didn't say the differences were unbridgable

Justin Trudeau wrote:
I do not see any possibility of coalition with the NDP regardless of who the leader might be.

Justin Trudeau rules out coalition with NDP after saying he may be open to it

Time passes....

Mulcair: We are willing to drop pushing for the Unity Act and we accept your economic plan.

Trudeau: Now I see a possibility of a coalition. 

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You keep pretending to be an expert. The most famous constitutional crisis involved this exact situation -- To remind you: M. King was the second party. He brought the third party in -- the Progressives into government: look up Robert Forke. 1925

And then King still had 4 times the seats.

In a case of second and third parties being really close but having majority between them the idea of the slightly smaller party being left out would make no sense - but that is what Trudeau is selling now. Unless he plans an arrangement with the Conservatives. At least they can agree on policy since they are miles apart on things like hair styles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections

1921

Liberals, led by William Lyon Mackenzie King, win a minority government, defeating Conservatives under Prime Minister Arthur Meighen. The Conservatives are reduced to third place in the House, but the Progressive Party under Thomas Crerar declines the title of official opposition so Meighen becomes opposition leader.

1925

Mackenzie King's Liberals hold on to power with a minority with the help of Progressives under Robert Forke, despite Meighen's Conservatives winning more seats. Labour Party leader and future CCF leader J.S. Woodsworth bargains his votes in the House to the Liberals in exchange for a promise to enact an old age pension plan. The Progressives soon withdraw support from the scandal-plagued Liberals but also refuse to support the Conservatives. The Governor General controversially gives Meighen the Prime Minister's post in the King-Byng Affair, but the Conservatives soon fall in a non-confidence vote.

The Liberals were the incumbants who had lost the election so they had no choice but to form a coalition or hand the government over to the Conservatives or force another election.

If the Liberals win a minority government they can go ahead approach the GG and prepare their throne speech without fear unless the NDP plans to support the Conservative government to keep the Liberals out.

The NDP will have to decide whether or not to bring the government down if they don't agree with the Liberals throne speech or legislation.

 

Pages