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:

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. 

 


Mulcair: We are willing to vote with you and Harper in favour of C-51. We are also willing to support low corporate taxes along with you and Harper. We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you and drop our opposition to Keystone. We are also willing to become less "interventionist".
Trudeau: Now we can talk coalition.

Jacob Two-Two

Every party knows their whole agenda can't be followed in a coalition government. They have to negotiate and compromise. The NDP would never make the unity act a barrier to replacing Harper, but you're saying the Libs will. Petty and stupid.

Pondering

Marco C wrote:
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

I didn't say anything about it being a sign of desperation. While the bones of the platform may be set campaigning is all about marketing and that is never set.

Marco C wrote:
2. The campign has already begun in earnest.

None of the parties are dipping heavily into their war chests and none have released their platform.

Marco C wrote:
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.

They didn't just start asking questions and twisting the response is most definitely creating a narrative. For the MSM it's always about selling papers.

Tom isn't angry and Justin isn't stupid.

jjuares

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Every party knows their whole agenda can't be followed in a coalition government. They have to negotiate and compromise. The NDP would never make the unity act a barrier to replacing Harper, but you're saying the Libs will. Petty and stupid.

Yes, especially since the unity act only comes into fact during referendums which may or may not take place.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

 

It's true and interesting that in our history at the federal level we have never yet faced the situation where the Conservatives have a plurality and the NDP and LPC combined have a majority. Such a situation would be new territory at the federal level but at the provincial level we have history with this kind of situation. In the Ontario election in 1985, the NDP and Liberals came in 3rd and 2nd respectively and threw out a decades old PC government even though the PC's won a plurality of the seats. Presumably, history could repeat itself at the federal level.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Mulcair: We are willing to vote with you and Harper in favour of C-51. We are also willing to support low corporate taxes along with you and Harper. We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you and drop our opposition to Keystone. We are also willing to become less "interventionist". Trudeau: Now we can talk coalition.

My point is that Trudeau left the door open for a coalition with the NDP if he decides it's a good move. When ever you name specific barriers it's an opening to negotiation if those barriers are not insurmountable.

 

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Every party knows their whole agenda can't be followed in a coalition government. They have to negotiate and compromise. The NDP would never make the unity act a barrier to replacing Harper, but you're saying the Libs will. Petty and stupid.

The Unity act is part of the NDP's agenda that they would have to give up but it is a weak barrier. It is a good strategy to name things your negotiating partner can easily give up. The NDP could be given "wins" by the Liberals acceding to some aspects of the NDP daycare plan or medicare plan or some other as yet unknown gem in the NDP platform.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Mulcair: We are willing to vote with you and Harper in favour of C-51. We are also willing to support low corporate taxes along with you and Harper. We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you and drop our opposition to Keystone. We are also willing to become less "interventionist". Trudeau: Now we can talk coalition.

My point is that Trudeau left the door open for a coalition with the NDP if he decides it's a good move. When ever you name specific barriers it's an opening to negotiation if those barriers are not insurmountable.

 

"What I said during that interview, what I’ve said for the past three years, is that I’m unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition,” he said Wednesday during a press conference in Halifax.

I guess in Pondering's universe that is the same leaving the "door open" to a coalition.
LOL
http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
  "What I said during that interview, what I’ve said for the past three years, is that I’m unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition,” he said Wednesday during a press conference in Halifax. I guess in Pondering's universe that is the same leaving the "door open" to a coalition. LOL
">http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...

From your link:

“The fact is, I’m opposed to coalitions,” he said.

Anyway, he said, there are too many areas in which the federal Liberals and New Democrats disagree; economic growth, trade and even the Constitution, “or how easy it should be to break up this country,” Trudeau offered as examples.

Jacob Two-Two

But those were examples, not conditions. He makes it clear that these aren't the only problems, but just some of them. At no point does he say that we can move forward if these things are dealt with. In fact, he seems to treat them as an afterthought. "Definitely no coalitions, period. And besides, our policies aren't identical."

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  "What I said during that interview, what I’ve said for the past three years, is that I’m unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition,” he said Wednesday during a press conference in Halifax. I guess in Pondering's universe that is the same leaving the "door open" to a coalition. LOL
">http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...

From your link:

“The fact is, I’m opposed to coalitions,” he said.

Anyway, he said, there are too many areas in which the federal Liberals and New Democrats disagree; economic growth, trade and even the Constitution, “or how easy it should be to break up this country,” Trudeau offered as examples.

I see. When Trudeau said he was unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition that really means he is considering it. What a hoot.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  "What I said during that interview, what I’ve said for the past three years, is that I’m unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition,” he said Wednesday during a press conference in Halifax. I guess in Pondering's universe that is the same leaving the "door open" to a coalition. LOL
">http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...

From your link:

“The fact is, I’m opposed to coalitions,” he said.

Anyway, he said, there are too many areas in which the federal Liberals and New Democrats disagree; economic growth, trade and even the Constitution, “or how easy it should be to break up this country,” Trudeau offered as examples.

I see. When Trudeau said he was unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition that really means he is considering it. What a hoot.

No, it does not mean he is considering it. It means that if he loses the election, Harper wins but by very little, and the NDP proposes putting Trudeau in the PM's chair he *could* consider it *if* he chooses to by saying that the NDP has negotiated on the areas where they disagree.

I'm saying he's got plenty of wiggle room in his unequivocal opposition.

Politically I think he made the right decision to unequivocally rule it out because Harper would use it to get another majority if Trudeau said he would overthrow a Harper minority.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
  "What I said during that interview, what I’ve said for the past three years, is that I’m unequivocally opposed to any sort of coalition,” he said Wednesday during a press conference in Halifax. I guess in Pondering's universe that is the same leaving the "door open" to a coalition. LOL
">http://globalnews.ca/news/1940031/justin-trudeau-now-says-he-is-unequivo...

From your link:

“The fact is, I’m opposed to coalitions,” he said.

Anyway, he said, there are too many areas in which the federal Liberals and New Democrats disagree; economic growth, trade and even the Constitution, “or how easy it should be to break up this country,” Trudeau offered as examples.

I'm saying he's got plenty of wiggle room in his unequivocal opposition.

Bloody funny this is.

Recently I have been ignoring some of your incredibly incoherent posts as they logically fold in on and defeat themselves. This one I respond to because it is so funny that I have to give it full marks for comedy.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

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.

 

You don't win a majority. That is not how parliament works. You win seats and with those approach the GG with a plan to get the confidence of the House.

In any case the presumption here is that the Conservatives may well retain a plurality but lose their majority. That is what the polls are indicating.

The Liberals will refuse to work with the NDP even as the NDP proposes that they work together to replace Harper. In about a year we may have a new election and the Liberals might or might not retain party status as Mulcair points out that they could have kicked ou Harper but chose not to.

Your comments about the 1925 example make no sense as the advantage is with the incumbant not the challenger. The Liberals cannot go to the GG without a plan to obtain the confidence of the House -- you get that by negotiation if you do not have a majority.

Perhaps North Report is right and Trudeau will lick Harper's boots after the election in order to avoid having to work with the NDP.

There is no way the public will expect the NDP to sign a blank cheque to the Liberals in exchange for nothing if they have a large number of seats. I think it will be a hard sell for Justin Trudeau to explain to the people that he won't negotitiate with other parties to get a mandate from a working majority in the House.

No doubt Mulcair will come to the table to make clear what he proposes and when Trudeau rejects that the NDP would have every right to support letting the people have another go with the full display of Liberal arrogance on view.

 

 

Stockholm

It should be very easy to negotiate with the liberals on policy - they always break all their promises anyways so its not as if they are actually going to be wedded to anything theyr have in their platform - all the liberals care about is being in power.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:
I'm saying he's got plenty of wiggle room in his unequivocal opposition.

I doubt if the unintentional hilarity of this line will ever be surpassed on this site.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 The Liberals cannot go to the GG without a plan to obtain the confidence of the House -- you get that by negotiation if you do not have a majority.

Harper didn't negotiate and he managed. There is no requirement for "a plan" before approaching the GG.  Ask anyone who won in 2006 and 2008 and I bet they name Harper.

That our system of parliament allows for coalitions and accords etc. doesn't mean they are compulsory.

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

Conservatives, led by Harper, win a minority, defeating Martin's Liberals. BQ keeps most of its seats and NDP improves its fourth-place position.

Whoever wins a minority will have the opportunity to approach the GG alone to be authorized to try to form a government. After the Throne speech the house has an opportunity to take a vote of non-confidence and someone else can approach the GG or another election has to be called.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:
I'm saying he's got plenty of wiggle room in his unequivocal opposition.

 

I doubt if the unintentional hilarity of this line will ever be surpassed on this site.

I do understand what unequivocal means. Trudeau didn't speak nearly as strongly as Mulcair did in the past.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-does-thomas-mulcair-stand/

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

And yet here we are. Mulcair is pushing for the promise of a coalition if Harper wins a minority or plurality if you prefer.  


jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Pondering wrote:
I'm saying he's got plenty of wiggle room in his unequivocal opposition.

 

I doubt if the unintentional hilarity of this line will ever be surpassed on this site.

I do understand what unequivocal means. Trudeau didn't speak nearly as strongly as Mulcair did in the past.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-does-thomas-mulcair-stand/

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

And yet here we are. Mulcair is pushing for the promise of a coalition if Harper wins a minority or plurality if you prefer.  



He clearly has changed his position. On the other hand you changed Trudeau's position for him. Does he know? LOL

ilha formosa

Pondering wrote:

Mulcair is pushing for the promise of a coalition if Harper wins a minority or plurality if you prefer.  

Let's at least get the language straight. A party does not "win" a minority.

Held as the party best able to hold the confidence of the House, with the support of other parties, it FORMS a minority government.

This is not a minor point.

Pondering

ilha formosa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Mulcair is pushing for the promise of a coalition if Harper wins a minority or plurality if you prefer.  

Let's at least get the language straight. A party does not "win" a minority.

Held as the party best able to hold the confidence of the House, with the support of other parties, it FORMS a minority government.

This is not a minor point.

So correct Wikipedia because they use the terminology and it is semantics therefore a minor point.

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

Conservatives, led by Harper, win a second minority, defeating Stéphane Dion's Liberals by larger margins than in 2006. BQ support is steady and NDP picks up several Liberal seats. Green Party under new leader Elizabeth May continues its growth, winning 6.78% of the national vote on its environmentally conscious platform, but again fails to win any seats.

Any MP can approach the GG and say they have the confidence of the house even an independent. If more than one MP claims to have the confidence of the house the GG has to pick one and give them a chance to address the house.

There is no way the NDP can prevent an MP from approaching the GG. There is no way the GG will refuse the Liberals the chance to address the house in a throne speech.

If the NDP wants to team up with the Conservatives to refuse the Liberals an opportunity to govern they are welcome to do so but I doubt the next election would show an improvement in NDP numbers.

 

Jacob Two-Two

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

So correct me then. What part of what I am saying is untrue? Are you saying Trudeau wouldn't approach the GG or are you saying the GG would refuse him the opportunity to face the house in a confidence vote?

Current numbers don't take into account the impact of the campaigns so it is not a foregone conclusion that they will not change.

Yes, if things do stay the same the Liberals will have to decide whether or not they want to team up with the NDP to bring down the government and it will be up to the NDP to decide whether or not they want to deal and if so on what terms.

The argument is what will happen if the Liberals "win" a plurality of votes. I say that under such circumstances Trudeau will approach the GG and the GG will give Trudeau the opportunity to face the house.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hung_parliament#Canada

Three recent Canadian Parliaments (the 38th, the 39th, and the 40th Parliaments) were hung parliaments. However, the term is not used in Canada. Instead, the term "minority government" is used. Although minority governments have tended to be short-lived, the two successive minorities under Prime Minister Stephen Harper managed to hold on to power from February 2006 until a no confidence vote in March 2011 resulted in the dissolution of Parliament and elections held on May 2, 2011. The subsequent election saw a majority parliament elected with Harper's Conservative Party obtaining a 24-seat majority.

Using the term "hung parliament" does not change how Canadians percieve the results of elections nor the ability of the winner to approach the GG.

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
What part of what I am saying is untrue? Are you saying Trudeau wouldn't approach the GG or are you saying the GG would refuse him the opportunity to face the house in a confidence vote?

As Harper is the incumbent Prime Minister, he has the right to meet the House and the GG first, even if he fails to finish first in the seat count in a minority situation. He gets first crack at trying to form a government. It's then up to the Liberals to decide whether or not to prop him up, as the NDP would certainly vote against Harper.

Remember that Harper was prepared to topple the Liberals in 2004 and become Prime Minister, except the NDP walked away from that arrangement.

JKR

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.

Centrist

jjuares wrote:
Mulcair:  We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you

Funny thing is that Mulcair stated the exact thing about one month ago and I wasn't too happy about it:

Mulcair argues government should learn to make better use of public/private partnerships (P3s). 

“I’m not dogmatic,” he says about P3s. “The point is to get things built.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/15/ndps-thomas-mulcair-stakes-hi...

 

Aristotleded24

Centrist wrote:
jjuares wrote:
Mulcair:  We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you

Funny thing is that Mulcair stated the exact thing about one month ago and I wasn't too happy about it:

Mulcair argues government should learn to make better use of public/private partnerships (P3s). 

“I’m not dogmatic,” he says about P3s. “The point is to get things built.”

">http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/15/ndps-thomas-mulcair-stakes-hi...

Except the Star is paraphrasing and we don't know exactly what he said. He used the word "dogmatic" in the context of the Harper government's rules insisting that municipal projects can only be built with P3s if they want federal cash.

jjuares

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Centrist wrote:
jjuares wrote:
Mulcair:  We are also willing to support P-3 schemes with you

Funny thing is that Mulcair stated the exact thing about one month ago and I wasn't too happy about it:

Mulcair argues government should learn to make better use of public/private partnerships (P3s). 

“I’m not dogmatic,” he says about P3s. “The point is to get things built.”

">http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/03/15/ndps-thomas-mulcair-stakes-hi...

Except the Star is paraphrasing and we don't know exactly what he said. He used the word "dogmatic" in the context of the Harper government's rules insisting that municipal projects can only be built with P3s if they want federal cash.


Exactly. However, I have yet to see a P3 that hasn't been bad news for taxpayers. There might be some though and if there are I would revise my position against them.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The NDP position on P3s is not quite relevant to whether Trudeau will resign after the next election. Now Trudeau has ruled out cooperation with the NDP, he will have to fall on his sword if the Liberals are forced into a coalition situation with the NDP.

There are many possible outcomes to the next election. Trudeau is saying he is only willing to work as the leader of a majority government, or a minority government supported by the Conservatives, such as Paul Martin's from 2004 to 2006.

There is no possibility of an NDP coalition with the Liberals while Trudeau is leader. This is the subconscious truth behind all this bullshit.

Pondering

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-whatever-trudeau-ma...

Why place in the foreground the impression that a coalition will be likely, necessary or desirable after the fall vote? For what other conclusions does this talk of a coalition lead to — other than, despite the Harper Conservatives’ fortunes and image being, arguably, at their very lowest during their time in office, both opposition parties still lack confidence that they will simply defeat them....

It may be worth wondering, however, if that definitive and unqualified declaration will last a single day beyond the fall vote. What if the NDP and the Liberals do very well, if their combined numbers could defeat a minority-winning Harper government? Would Trudeau, even if it is that stale Thomas Mulcair leading the NDP, decline to defeat Harper? If the price of such a combination with Mulcair were to be a short-term coalition government? Will Trudeau stand by his “I don’t do coalitions,” then?

I suspect not. What we can take from Tuesday’s musings and Wednesday’s total walk back is that the idea of a coalition is to be kept out of the public conversation till after the election.  That the Liberals do not want the notion even to be contemplated till they see what the landscape is after the vote. For that implies, even after all the Duffy business, that the Conservatives could still be dominant. An unthinkable proposition best kept secluded from potential voters.

However, after the election, all protestations, unequivocal and otherwise, will be off the table. They will drop into that rich pit of absolute declarations of intent or practice, which become “inoperative” or “misspeak” the moment politicians find them no longer convenient or opportune.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.

If the NDP were just behind the Conservatives and they would have had a majority with the Liberals and the Liberals deicde not to support a change in government it is the people who would go back to the drawing board and erase the Liberal party from the picture. I think there is little doubt of that.

Then the Liberals leader can go back to the chalk board.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.

I see you are still ignoring the point. Let me spell it out again: Let's assume that the Liberals got the second most seats and the NDP had a considerable number of seats but came in third. Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal. So if the House looked like this:

BQ 4

GR 2

NDP 95

Liberal 100

Conservative 135

You are saying that in the above example you would support Trudeau either supporting Harper or demanding that the NDP with only a few seats short of Trudeau have to support the Liberals without a share of power.

I assure you if the NDP were offering a coalition and Trudeau rejected it in this circumstance Canadians would think that Truduau would be in the way of progress not an agent for it. There is absolutely no rationale available for Trudeau to reject it a coalition out of hand when we face an election where the third party is so close to the second party. The same applies if it were the NDP with a few seats more than the Liberals.

Your argument is a very good rationale for people to work hard to make sure that as few Liberals are elected as possible.

I am okay with this. If there had been any possible chance that I might have voted for my Liberal MP to stop a Conservative, you have most certainly convinced me that I should not.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

***If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.***

I see you are still ignoring the point. Let me spell it out again: Let's assume that the Liberals got the second most seats and the NDP had a considerable number of seats but came in third. Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal. So if the House looked like this:

BQ 4

GR 2

NDP 95

Liberal 100

Conservative 135

You are saying that in the above example you would support Trudeau either supporting Harper or demanding that the NDP with only a few seats short of Trudeau have to support the Liberals without a share of power.

I assure you if the NDP were offering a coalition and Trudeau rejected it in this circumstance Canadians would think that Truduau would be in the way of progress not an agent for it. There is absolutely no rationale available for Trudeau to reject it a coalition out of hand when we face an election where the third party is so close to the second party. The same applies if it were the NDP with a few seats more than the Liberals.

Your argument is a very good rationale for people to work hard to make sure that as few Liberals are elected as possible.

I am okay with this. If there had been any possible chance that I might have voted for my Liberal MP to stop a Conservative, you have most certainly convinced me that I should not.

I'm saying that if Harper wins 135 seats Trudeau will listen to the throne speech before deciding whether or not to form a coalition with the NDP. The Liberals governed Canada with 135 seats in 2004 and the Conservatives governed with 124 in 2008.

For the NDP a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals could be a political coup that would change Canadian elections forever.  For the Liberals, depending on how much power the NDP demanded, it would be an admission that they can no longer take first place on their own and if ever they did manage it there would be much greater pressure to share power. It would be a step down.

If the NDP and the Liberals entered into a semi-equal power-sharing arrangement, given how similar their programs are, the next step could be amagamation. There would be a lot of pressure to continue working together and to start running just one candidate in some ridings. Would that really be better for progressive Canadians?

The thought of another four years of Harper is agony so I would come down on the side of forming a coalition to oust him. That doesn't make me blind to the political ramifications that play into the decisions taken by the party executives of both the NDP and the Liberals nor how decisions can play out in unexpected and unwelcome ways.

Fortunately for me I don't think the situation described is likely to arise.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal.

Trudeau didn't say any such thing. He is planning on winning the election. It would be electoral suicide for Trudeau to say he will take power unless Harper wins a majority.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

***If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.***

I see you are still ignoring the point. Let me spell it out again: Let's assume that the Liberals got the second most seats and the NDP had a considerable number of seats but came in third. Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal. So if the House looked like this:

BQ 4

GR 2

NDP 95

Liberal 100

Conservative 135

You are saying that in the above example you would support Trudeau either supporting Harper or demanding that the NDP with only a few seats short of Trudeau have to support the Liberals without a share of power.

I assure you if the NDP were offering a coalition and Trudeau rejected it in this circumstance Canadians would think that Truduau would be in the way of progress not an agent for it. There is absolutely no rationale available for Trudeau to reject it a coalition out of hand when we face an election where the third party is so close to the second party. The same applies if it were the NDP with a few seats more than the Liberals.

Your argument is a very good rationale for people to work hard to make sure that as few Liberals are elected as possible.

I am okay with this. If there had been any possible chance that I might have voted for my Liberal MP to stop a Conservative, you have most certainly convinced me that I should not.

I'm saying that if Harper wins 135 seats Trudeau will listen to the throne speech before deciding whether or not to form a coalition with the NDP. The Liberals governed Canada with 135 seats in 2004 and the Conservatives governed with 124 in 2008.

For the NDP a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals could be a political coup that would change Canadian elections forever.  For the Liberals, depending on how much power the NDP demanded, it would be an admission that they can no longer take first place on their own and if ever they did manage it there would be much greater pressure to share power. It would be a step down.

If the NDP and the Liberals entered into a semi-equal power-sharing arrangement, given how similar their programs are, the next step could be amagamation. There would be a lot of pressure to continue working together and to start running just one candidate in some ridings. Would that really be better for progressive Canadians?

The thought of another four years of Harper is agony so I would come down on the side of forming a coalition to oust him. That doesn't make me blind to the political ramifications that play into the decisions taken by the party executives of both the NDP and the Liberals nor how decisions can play out in unexpected and unwelcome ways.

Fortunately for me I don't think the situation described is likely to arise.

So you think Trudeau is not being truthful in saying he would not under any circumstances work with the NDP in a coalition. Interesting.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

For the NDP a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals could be a political coup that would change Canadian elections forever.  For the Liberals, depending on how much power the NDP demanded, it would be an admission that they can no longer take first place on their own and if ever they did manage it there would be much greater pressure to share power. It would be a step down.

If the NDP and the Liberals entered into a semi-equal power-sharing arrangement, given how similar their programs are, the next step could be amagamation. There would be a lot of pressure to continue working together and to start running just one candidate in some ridings. Would that really be better for progressive Canadians?

The alternative to amalgamation is electoral reform. Replacing FPTP with p.r. or even instant runoff voting would make amalgamation unnecessary.
That's one reason why many progressive Canadians support the establishment of p.r.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

***If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.***

I see you are still ignoring the point. Let me spell it out again: Let's assume that the Liberals got the second most seats and the NDP had a considerable number of seats but came in third. Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal. So if the House looked like this:

BQ 4

GR 2

NDP 95

Liberal 100

Conservative 135

You are saying that in the above example you would support Trudeau either supporting Harper or demanding that the NDP with only a few seats short of Trudeau have to support the Liberals without a share of power.

I assure you if the NDP were offering a coalition and Trudeau rejected it in this circumstance Canadians would think that Truduau would be in the way of progress not an agent for it. There is absolutely no rationale available for Trudeau to reject it a coalition out of hand when we face an election where the third party is so close to the second party. The same applies if it were the NDP with a few seats more than the Liberals.

Your argument is a very good rationale for people to work hard to make sure that as few Liberals are elected as possible.

I am okay with this. If there had been any possible chance that I might have voted for my Liberal MP to stop a Conservative, you have most certainly convinced me that I should not.

I'm saying that if Harper wins 135 seats Trudeau will listen to the throne speech before deciding whether or not to form a coalition with the NDP. The Liberals governed Canada with 135 seats in 2004 and the Conservatives governed with 124 in 2008.

For the NDP a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals could be a political coup that would change Canadian elections forever.  For the Liberals, depending on how much power the NDP demanded, it would be an admission that they can no longer take first place on their own and if ever they did manage it there would be much greater pressure to share power. It would be a step down.

If the NDP and the Liberals entered into a semi-equal power-sharing arrangement, given how similar their programs are, the next step could be amagamation. There would be a lot of pressure to continue working together and to start running just one candidate in some ridings. Would that really be better for progressive Canadians?

The thought of another four years of Harper is agony so I would come down on the side of forming a coalition to oust him. That doesn't make me blind to the political ramifications that play into the decisions taken by the party executives of both the NDP and the Liberals nor how decisions can play out in unexpected and unwelcome ways.

Fortunately for me I don't think the situation described is likely to arise.

So you think Trudeau is not being truthful in saying he would not under any circumstances work with the NDP in a coalition. Interesting.

Trudeau said he won't form a coalition with the NDP but he did not say the LPC will support a CPC Throne Speech. My guess is that the LPC will not form a coalition with the NDP but they will vote against a CPC Throne Speech. So if the election gives the CPC a plurality, the LPC will not likely form a coalition with the NDP but they will likely vote against a CPC Throne Speech and by default support either a LPC or NDP minority government depending on whether the NDP or LPC comes in second place. This is why Harper said in the last election and is saying again that the CPC needs a majority in order to remain in power. In this instance I think Harper is likely correct.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So you think Trudeau is not being truthful in saying he would not under any circumstances work with the NDP in a coalition. Interesting.

He is being more truthful than Mulcair was when he said this:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-does-thomas-mulcair-stand/

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

Trudeau ruled out a coalition for specific reasons but he didn't rule out working with the NDP in some form of accord.  

Trudeau is not going to commit electoral suicide. It is an unreasonable expectation. The NDP is trying to give the impression that they want a coalition out of the goodness of their hearts and the selfish Liberals don't so everybody should vote NDP.

Cute but in my opinion it won't work because it's transparent and on election day people will vote based on what they think the parties will deliver if they are elected not on who would or wouldn't hypothetically form a coalition to oust Harper if he wins another election.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

JKR wrote:
Jacob Two-Two wrote:

As always, you are dead wrong, but it's a tad academic anyway, isn't it? Based on current numbers it seems unlikely the Libs will win more seats than the Cons. Unless there's a major shift in voter preference between now and the election, it will be the Liberals having to decide whether to team up with the NDP or let Harper keep governing without a majority like they did last time.

 

It seems to me that what some people are saying is that in the case where the CPC fails to win a majority and the LPC comes in second place, the LPC would want to form a minority government without any formal agreement with the NDP. What the LPC would do in the case of a hung parliament where the CPC comes in first and the NDP second is a question supporters of the LPC understandably don't want to consider.

They are saying that in the case where the Liberals come in first place but don't win a majority the Liberals will be forced to have a coalition or accord of some sort with either the NDP or the Conservatives. I say no such accord would be necessary.

If the CPC comes in first and the NDP comes in second that would mean that the Liberals would be in third place again. I think the Liberals would be devastated and go back to the drawing board. I don't think the Liberals would form a coalition with the NDP under those circumstances.

***If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.***

I see you are still ignoring the point. Let me spell it out again: Let's assume that the Liberals got the second most seats and the NDP had a considerable number of seats but came in third. Your leader has suggested he would vote to keep Harper in power unless the NDP gave him a majority without getting any power in the deal. So if the House looked like this:

BQ 4

GR 2

NDP 95

Liberal 100

Conservative 135

You are saying that in the above example you would support Trudeau either supporting Harper or demanding that the NDP with only a few seats short of Trudeau have to support the Liberals without a share of power.

I assure you if the NDP were offering a coalition and Trudeau rejected it in this circumstance Canadians would think that Truduau would be in the way of progress not an agent for it. There is absolutely no rationale available for Trudeau to reject it a coalition out of hand when we face an election where the third party is so close to the second party. The same applies if it were the NDP with a few seats more than the Liberals.

Your argument is a very good rationale for people to work hard to make sure that as few Liberals are elected as possible.

I am okay with this. If there had been any possible chance that I might have voted for my Liberal MP to stop a Conservative, you have most certainly convinced me that I should not.

I'm saying that if Harper wins 135 seats Trudeau will listen to the throne speech before deciding whether or not to form a coalition with the NDP. The Liberals governed Canada with 135 seats in 2004 and the Conservatives governed with 124 in 2008.

For the NDP a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals could be a political coup that would change Canadian elections forever.  For the Liberals, depending on how much power the NDP demanded, it would be an admission that they can no longer take first place on their own and if ever they did manage it there would be much greater pressure to share power. It would be a step down.

If the NDP and the Liberals entered into a semi-equal power-sharing arrangement, given how similar their programs are, the next step could be amagamation. There would be a lot of pressure to continue working together and to start running just one candidate in some ridings. Would that really be better for progressive Canadians?

The thought of another four years of Harper is agony so I would come down on the side of forming a coalition to oust him. That doesn't make me blind to the political ramifications that play into the decisions taken by the party executives of both the NDP and the Liberals nor how decisions can play out in unexpected and unwelcome ways.

Fortunately for me I don't think the situation described is likely to arise.

So you think Trudeau is not being truthful in saying he would not under any circumstances work with the NDP in a coalition. Interesting.

 

Trudeau said he won't form a coalition with the NDP but he did not say the LPC will support a CPC Throne Speech. My guess is that the LPC will not form a coalition with the NDP but they will vote against a CPC Throne Speech. So if the election gives the CPC a plurality, the LPC will not likely form a coalition with the NDP but they will likely vote against a CPC Throne Speech and by default support either a LPC or NDP minority government depending on whether the NDP or LPC comes in second place. This is why Harper said in the last election and is saying again that the CPC needs a majority in order to remain in power. In this instance I think Harper is likely correct.

You are falling into the Pondering trap.

These arguments **might** work if the NDP or Liberals had a plurality. The issue we are talking about is if the Conservatives have a plurality. In that case a formal arrangement would be required to replace the Harper government. If the parties are close in seats an accord won't cut it. So this comes back to the question -- faced with a choice between a coalition and Harper government which would the Liberals choose? If there is any chance it would not be continued Harper government, then Trudeau is being dishonest (or stupid).

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

So you think Trudeau is not being truthful in saying he would not under any circumstances work with the NDP in a coalition. Interesting.

He is being more truthful than Mulcair was when he said this:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/where-does-thomas-mulcair-stand/

One thing Mulcair is clear on is that he’ll go after Liberal supporters, but won’t work with the rival party. “N.O.,” he told HuffPost. The NDP tried to form a coalition with the Liberals in 2008 and then the Grits “lifted their noses up on it,” Mulcair said.The coalition experience taught Mulcair everything he needs to know about the Liberals. They’re untrustworthy and he said he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,” he said.

Trudeau ruled out a coalition for specific reasons but he didn't rule out working with the NDP in some form of accord.  

Trudeau is not going to commit electoral suicide. It is an unreasonable expectation. The NDP is trying to give the impression that they want a coalition out of the goodness of their hearts and the selfish Liberals don't so everybody should vote NDP.

Cute but in my opinion it won't work because it's transparent and on election day people will vote based on what they think the parties will deliver if they are elected not on who would or wouldn't hypothetically form a coalition to oust Harper if he wins another election.

 

 

 

BS Pondering-- this is a clear contradiction -- he has said there are no circumstances for a coalition. If there are then he is being dishonest and Mulcair is teling the truth. If there are truly no circumstances for a coalition then Trudeau is a complete fool who would be an extremely dangerous PM.

And no if the NDP and Liebrals are a handful of seats an accord won't be enough. This is what is required:

1) Plurality an accord or coalition is possible but not required -- you can govern alone

2) Close second with a distant party taking you over the top -- an accord can work like it did in Ontario

3) Not an extremely close second and with a close third -- the 2nd and 3rd parties way stronger than the first party -- this is the case for a coalition. In this case the choice is either to let a Conservative minority government you could replace continue to govern (If this is Trudeau's plan then the Liberals should be destroyed utterly) or to demand that a party with almost half of the governing vote in the house be a silent partner (in this case the Liberals should be destroyed).

The issue here is that Trudeau is being an arrogant idiot to think it is politically realistic to leave a Conservative minority in power simply becuase  he cannot share power in a parliament that has three larger parties. Just becuase Trudeau feels nostalgia for the time when the NDP was a minor player does not make it so and the rules have changed.

 

***

 

As for your quote from 2012 during the leadership election -- that has no bearing at all.

This was Mulcair's context:

a) arguments for a merger were the topic

b) 3 years away from an election

c) the Liberals at the time were a minor party with little representation in the House and barely at 20%

d) Mulcair was not yet leader

e) the Liberals did not even have a leader and their future was uncertain

Today the context is

a) The NDP is the official opposition and is incumbant in almost three times the seats as the Liebrals

b) the NDP and Liberals are not that far apart in the polls (5-9%) with the Liberals trending as falling slightly and the NDP rising.

c) the election is only a few months away

d) the polls suggest that the gap between the NDP and Liberals will not be very large and between them they would have a comfortable majority

To say no to a coalition now now is very different than it was in 2012. That is why Mulcair has modified his position.

ilha formosa

JKR wrote:
Trudeau said he won't form a coalition with the NDP but he did not say the LPC will support a CPC Throne Speech. My guess is that the LPC will not form a coalition with the NDP but they will vote against a CPC Throne Speech. So if the election gives the CPC a plurality, the LPC will not likely form a coalition with the NDP but they will likely vote against a CPC Throne Speech and by default support either a LPC or NDP minority government depending on whether the NDP or LPC comes in second place. This is why Harper said in the last election and is saying again that the CPC needs a majority in order to remain in power. In this instance I think Harper is likely correct.

The question is, if (with no majority) it's Con 1st, NDP 2nd, Lib 3rd, would JT enter into a coalition? Logically, if he is categorically against forming one with the NDP, then his options in this scenario would be: 1) allowing Harper to govern on a case-by-case basis as PM once again, or 2) entering a more formal arrangement with the Cons. If the Libs place 2nd and NDP 3rd in a minority situation, JT has effectively said he will settle as Leader of the Opposition, with Harper as his PM.

ilha formosa

Pondering wrote:
So correct Wikipedia because they use the terminology and it is semantics therefore a minor point.

Wikipedia is very useful but I don't take it as The Authority. And anyone who follows politics knows semantics are quite important.

Pondering wrote:
The argument is what will happen if the Liberals "win" a plurality of votes. I say that under such circumstances Trudeau will approach the GG and the GG will give Trudeau the opportunity to face the house.

Once again, if the Libs place first but without a majority, they will govern by trying to obtain support on a case-by-case basis.

Pondering wrote:
If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.

Well, you are far ahead of your leader on that point. Having ruled out the NDP, then how about a merger with the Conservatives? What is his infallible position on that? He can't hide behind the catch phrase "I don't deal in hypotheticals" for highly probable situations that could lead to making such choices, and very consequential ones at that.

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau ruled out a coalition for specific reasons but he didn't rule out working with the NDP in some form of accord.

Coalition. Accord. Semantics. Minor?

ilha formosa

Another option for the Liberals would be to enter a coalition with the NDP once JT is replaced with a new leader.

Jacob Two-Two

A new leader every election seems to be the new Liberal rule, so that's certainly a possibility.

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

JKR wrote:
Trudeau said he won't form a coalition with the NDP but he did not say the LPC will support a CPC Throne Speech. My guess is that the LPC will not form a coalition with the NDP but they will vote against a CPC Throne Speech. So if the election gives the CPC a plurality, the LPC will not likely form a coalition with the NDP but they will likely vote against a CPC Throne Speech and by default support either a LPC or NDP minority government depending on whether the NDP or LPC comes in second place. This is why Harper said in the last election and is saying again that the CPC needs a majority in order to remain in power. In this instance I think Harper is likely correct.

The question is, if (with no majority) it's Con 1st, NDP 2nd, Lib 3rd, would JT enter into a coalition? Logically, if he is categorically against forming one with the NDP, then his options in this scenario would be: 1) allowing Harper to govern on a case-by-case basis as PM once again, or 2) entering a more formal arrangement with the Cons. If the Libs place 2nd and NDP 3rd in a minority situation, JT has effectively said he will settle as Leader of the Opposition, with Harper as his PM.

 

The problem is Trudeau is trying to both sit on the fence and be categorical about not working with the NDP. Of course that is not possible. Trudeau would be irresponsible to vote against a Harper throne speech while refusing to work with the NDP in a coalition -- the result would be a constitutional crisis.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As for your quote from 2012 during the leadership election -- that has no bearing at all.

It most certainly does. Mulcair did not quantify his statement. He went even farther and said NEVER.

he’ll never work with them again, whether in a formal or informal coalition. “The no is categorical, absolute, irrefutable and non-negotiable. It’s no. End of story. Full stop,

So by your standards Mulcair was either lying then or lying now. There is no statute of limitations.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
a) arguments for a merger were the topic

Coalition was the topic, whether formal or informal.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 This was Mulcair's context:

b) 3 years away from an election

c) the Liberals at the time were a minor party with little representation in the House and barely at 20%

d) Mulcair was not yet leader

e) the Liberals did not even have a leader and their future was uncertain

Oh, so you mean political considerations drove his statement? Or are you saying he expected conditions to stay the same forever?

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

a) The NDP is the official opposition and is incumbant in almost three times the seats as the Liebrals

b) the NDP and Liberals are not that far apart in the polls (5-9%) with the Liberals trending as falling slightly and the NDP rising.

c) the election is only a few months away

d) the polls suggest that the gap between the NDP and Liberals will not be very large and between them they would have a comfortable majority

To say no to a coalition now now is very different than it was in 2012. That is why Mulcair has modified his position.

Yes, now it's politically beneficial to the NDP to talk coalition so Mulcair completely forgot that he never wants to work with the Liberals formally or informally. Now he's willing to work with a new leader whom he speaks of disparagingly because now the Liberals are ahead.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Just becuase Trudeau feels nostalgia for the time when the NDP was a minor player does not make it so and the rules have changed.

The rules haven't changed the situation has changed so Mulcair changed his mind and if the situation changes again Trudeau can change his mind too and neither of them are liars for doing so.

The only people obsessing over this are political news junkies and pundits that need something to write about. Nobody cares what Mulcair said in 2012 and and after the election no one will care what Trudeau said now because the situation will have changed yet again.

Mulcair and the NDP executive have the same priority as the other leaders and political parties. Winning as many seats as possible.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The problem is Trudeau is trying to both sit on the fence and be categorical about not working with the NDP. Of course that is not possible. Trudeau would be irresponsible to vote against a Harper throne speech while refusing to work with the NDP in a coalition -- the result would be a constitutional crisis.

No he isn't. He made the mistake of answering a hypothetical question the answer to which was twisted by the press. As a result Trudeau made an unequivocal statement to shut it down rather than be dragged into a series of "what if" questions.

Trudeau is not saying he will vote against Harper's hypothetical throne speech. He isn't saying he will vote for it. When and if the time comes he will consider his decision in the context of what is happening then.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Trudeau has set himself up beautifully to resign unless he becomes Prime Minister. If he is minority Prime Minister, he will govern with Conservative support, as did Paul Martin.

If he does not become Prime Minister it is because he came in second or third. This would mean he could resign. If the Liberal MPs decided that they wanted to work with the NDP, Trudeau would have no choice but to resign.

I also think we should have one generalized thread for "Liberal NDP Coalition Histrionics".

Pondering

ilha formosa wrote:
Wikipedia is very useful but I don't take it as The Authority. And anyone who follows politics knows semantics are quite important.

In Canada papers use the term "minority government" all the time. I have never heard "won a plurality" or "hung parliament" when referring to Canadian minority wins. They always say either won a majority or won a minority.

Apparently these words are used in the UK much like we say truck and they say lorry. What it amounts to is that the party with the most seats even if it isn't a majority usually presents a throne speech which usually passes. That is true in both countries.

Recently the UK did end up with a coalition. Labour had been in power for several elections but lost the most recent. Instead of resigning and giving the first place party a chance to form government they formed a coalition with the 3rd place party.

In a minority win the sitting government doesn't have to give their opponent first crack at forming government. That is a similar but also quite different situation.

Pondering wrote:
If the Liberals come in second place there is a possibility they would form a coalition but it would depend on the circumstances.

ilha formosa wrote:
Well, you are far ahead of your leader on that point. Having ruled out the NDP, then how about a merger with the Conservatives? What is his infallible position on that? He can't hide behind the catch phrase "I don't deal in hypotheticals" for highly probable situations that could lead to making such choices, and very consequential ones at that.

Several pundits have already hypothesized that if push came to shove Trudeau would have to deal if he came in a close second.

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau ruled out a coalition for specific reasons but he didn't rule out working with the NDP in some form of accord.

ilha formosa wrote:
Coalition. Accord. Semantics. Minor?

Yes, it is no different than Mulcair changing his mind based on updated political considerations. If he decides an accord makes sense six months from now I doubt the electorate will be upset about Trudeau having rejected a coalition six months earlier.

If you go out on the street and ask people what they think about Trudeau categorically ruling out a coalition with the NDP if Harper wins a plurality most of them would say "What?" and the rest would say "So what?"

I'm saying "So what". He can backtrack like Mulcair if need be and in the meantime it blunts Harper's argument for a majority. Mulcair is feeding into the narrative the the Liberals are too left wing. It could easily send blue Liberals back into Harper's arms maintaining his majority.

The NDP is willing to risk it as long as it maximizes the NDP's number of seats.

Trudeau would be an idiot not to rule out a coalition.

Pages