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

241 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

Pondering

ilha formosa wrote:

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.

He would have the option of backtracking which I think would be easy but yes the Liberals would consider supporting Harper on a case by case basis as they always have. They might demand concessions as the NDP does. Why would this suddenly be shocking?

If there were the chance of an accord/coalition/arrangement between the NDP and the Liberals the outcome would not be a foregone conclusion.

Trudeau is not going to promise the NDP a powersharing arrangement if Harper wins a minority. That would be stupid.

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is not going to promise the NDP a powersharing arrangement if Harper wins a minority. That would be stupid.

Which means that the Liberals cannot be trusted by any progressive person. It is admitted here that Trudeau would prop up Harper. We don't want this any more. We want to STOP HARPER. The Liberals just want to slither and slime around and not commit to anything. They have no agenda, no policies, and a leader who refuses to fight Stephen Harper.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau is not going to promise the NDP a powersharing arrangement if Harper wins a minority. That would be stupid.

Which means that the Liberals cannot be trusted by any progressive person. It is admitted here that Trudeau would prop up Harper. We don't want this any more. We want to STOP HARPER. The Liberals just want to slither and slime around and not commit to anything. They have no agenda, no policies, and a leader who refuses to fight Stephen Harper.

I don't know any progressive people that want Harper to win a majority and that may well happen if Trudeau were to promise to defeat the government unless they get a majority.

So, if you really want a coalition shut up about it before the election because it is playing into Harper's hands.

Brachina

Look at Alberta and the answer to beating Harper and his puppet masters becomes clear, the answer isn't a quick fix attempt to cheat the system, its uniting behind the NDP!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

So New Democrats should just SHUTUP? You don't have much respect for democracy Pondering! Shut up? I think not.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

Sure he did, but only upto a point. The NDP isn't obligated to prop up Trudeau just because you say Harper is worse Pondering. When are you going to figure that out? The NDP needs a better reason then because....Harper!

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

Sure he did, but only upto a point. The NDP isn't obligated to prop up Trudeau just because you say Harper is worse Pondering. When are you going to figure that out? The NDP needs a better reason then because....Harper!

I didn't say they were obligated to work with the Liberals or anyone else. It's NDPers that are insisting on working together and confirming it in advance of the election.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So New Democrats should just SHUTUP? You don't have much respect for democracy Pondering! Shut up? I think not.

No, people who want a coalition should shut up about it or they risk giving Harper a majority.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

Sure he did, but only upto a point. The NDP isn't obligated to prop up Trudeau just because you say Harper is worse Pondering. When are you going to figure that out? The NDP needs a better reason then because....Harper!

I didn't say they were obligated to work with the Liberals or anyone else. It's NDPers that are insisting on working together and confirming it in advance of the election.

Arthur Cramer wrote:
So New Democrats should just SHUTUP? You don't have much respect for democracy Pondering! Shut up? I think not.

No, people who want a coalition should shut up about it or they risk giving Harper a majority.

Do you honestly think Canadians dred the NDP that much? Scratch that , you do. You're showing your cards Pondering. Maybe you're afraid Canadians are smart enough not to vote Harper but not stupid enough to be sucked into voting Liberal. Actually , scratch that too, you ARE hoping
Canadians are stupid enough to vote Liberal. Do me a favor, stop telling me to shut up, it's arrogantly insulting .

ETA: do you seriously believe that Canadians care what a short little old Jew from the Prairie (me) thinks? Why I must be far more powerful then even I could imagine! I'm a regular obi-wan-kanobi!

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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).

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance. I think constitutional convention would dictate that if Harper's throne speech is voted down, the Governor General would have to ask Trudeau if he is willing to form a government even if his party is well back of the CPC and slightly ahead of the NDP. The Governor General would not call another election without first asking the second place leader if he is willing to form a government because there is no guarantee that the subsequent election would not produce similar results again. Automatically calling another election without a throne speech passing would create a real constitutional crisis if subsequent elections continue to produce similar results. This is why the Governor General's first responsibility after a government loses the first throne speech after an election is to find a person who can command the confidence of the House and call for an election only if they cannot find such a person.

Our constitution does not even mention political parties so I think the Governor General has to look primarily at who he thinks is in the best position to attain the confidence of the House when deciding what will happen when a government's first throne speech is voted down after an election.

JKR

ilha formosa wrote:

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.

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

If the CPC come in first, the NDP in second, and LPC in third, the NDP could form a minority government without a formal agreement with the LPC.

I think the second place party has the right to try to form a minority government even if it is far behind the first place party and even if the third place party is almost even with the second place party.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

Why should the LPC be forced to choose from only two options, either CPC rule or a coalition with the NDP? I think they have the option to prefer having a minority government led by themselves. I think the NDP would also have this option in the event they come in second place and the LPC comes in third place.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Duncan Cameron says Trudeau choses silent Liberal Conservative partnership. But of course all you Libs want to insist it isn't true, don't you ? What's it like being the sole holder of the truth? You guys and G-d, right?

ilha formosa

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.

Or another election that would see the obliteration of the Liberal party from both sides.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement.

You give me one comparable example -- anywhere in the world -- of a minority government where almost half the seats a government depends on to get confidence are from a party that is not from the governing party or parties and where these parties or party have no part of the government. This is what we are talking about. And if you can't find a relevant example to compare to -- stop this crap about conventions. There is a democratic principle here about governance that you clearly want to ignore in order to imagine that there is some kind of prerogative for the Liberals to claim power by themselves when they have a very small proportion of the seats in the House.

Constitutional convention -- bullshit. The normal convention is that when a party does not come close to enough seats they have coalition partners. To govern without anywhere near enough seats to command the House is unprecedented. There is no convention whatsoever that suggests that the GG would even have to accept this -- even if the NDP for some reason agreed. And there is no reason why the NDP would feel compelled to agree.

Yes I am annoyed -- you and Pondering keep talking in this thread without any acknowledgement of what is being said to you. Now, we have BS about constitutional conventions. But there is political convention: There is no history anywhere in the world where a major party in a parliament with a large proportion of seats compared to the government would be required to support the government but not get a share of power.

Parties with 10-20% of the seats of a governing party have in the past propped up a government that had a plurality informally.

When the governing party needed a few votes from the third party just to get to a plurality (Peterson/Rae) they used an accord even though the NDP was much, much smaller as something more formal was needed. In that case it still would have been legitimate for the NDP to demand cabinet positions if they wanted to.

But when the government requires large numbers of votes from another party a coalition is normally required to provide stability and adequate representation.

Today’s example --  where the Liberal party may get less than a third of the seats to govern without partners would likely be seen as illegitimate. A Liberal demand that another party has to support this without a share of power would be seen as grossly unreasonable except for the most drunk members of the Liberal party.

Stop the straw man nonsense: If the Liberals get a plurality-- they can govern and the NDP would have political difficulty bringing them down. But none of the polls are suggesting this is likely -- nevermind certain. And Trudeau has ruled out what is required in almost every election scenario now being projected.

Where the Liberals need the NDP just to come to more seats than the Conservatives -- political convention is that there be an Accord -- AT LEAST. But if the Liberals are not even close there is no way that they can justify asking the GG to allow a government without an adequate mandate.

The Constitutional convention is entirely around the requirement to show a stable proposal for governance. A party of 90 seats depending on a party of 80 seats without any sharing of power is NOT an argument for the minimum mandate and stability required. In this case the GG would be entirely in his rights to tell Trudeau to go get a coalition, ask if there are any other coalition options or call a new election. If it came to a new election there would be a economic, constitutional, and political crisis -- all precipitated by Trudeau being unwilling to participate in a coalition.

 

Note to Pondering: in a democracy we don't shut up about the potential for such problems. We have every right to demand that our leaders not come up with such stupid comments as what Trudeau has said. If he had kept his trap shut on this we would not be in this position. Now he has to walk it back otherwise he is a potential problem for the stability of the country. There is a presumption that parties going into an election are prepared to work with parliament to get a government by coalition if required when there is no strong plurality. Mulcair had to eat his own words (made from before he became leader) given the potential for a strong Liberal and NDP showing. Trudeau seems to be unaware of his obligations as a political leader going into an election to assure the nation that all means will be used to ensure there is a government with the confidence of parliament. Part of that is not to appoint yourself dictator over the other parties and demand they keep you in power without any arrangement -- when you have so few seats relative to the other parties.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
ilha formosa wrote:

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.

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

 

 

If the CPC come in first, the NDP in second, and LPC in third, the NDP could form a minority government without a formal agreement with the LPC.

I think the second place party has the right to try to form a minority government even if it is far behind the first place party and even if the third place party is almost even with the second place party.

What you think is wrong.

The GG would not agree.

The people would see it as illigitimate

The economy and marklets would see it as unstable.

It would be politically toxic.

 

The NDP would not be so stupid -- that appreas to be a Liberal problem.

The NDP would understand that they would need to be very close to the third party to try it with an accord. They would need a coalition if they were far back. The NDP would invite coalition or would advise the GG that due to the intransigence of the other parties there is no government possible and reluctantly agree to a new election. They would then campaign on the fact that the Liberals are an obstruction to a functioning goverrnment. Trudeau would be gone.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

 

Why should the LPC be forced to choose from only two options, either CPC rule or a coalition with the NDP? I think they have the option to prefer having a minority government led by themselves. I think the NDP would also have this option in the event they come in second place and the LPC comes in third place.

When you do not have the seats -- you lose options. This is life.

Hey Life, meet Trudeau.

If the Liberals have a majority they can govern alone. If a plurality they can govern case by case. If less than plurality they can bring an accord to the GG if they are close and much bigger than the third party. If a long way back needing substantial help from a third party to get to plurality they need an Accord. The only alternative is to let the biggest party govern and support them in doing so. Other wise you have the Liberals ensuring that no government is possible.

At one time we used to fear the BQ being an obstruction with balance of power to the function of government. Now it is the Liberals. Significant parties must be responsible enough to be willing to share power if they cannot get enough support for a mandate by themselves.

Jacob Two-Two

Ignatieff also rejected a coalition. It seems no lessons were drawn from that in the Liberal party. But if Liberals could learn, they wouldn't be Liberals anymore.

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

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.

Or another election that would see the obliteration of the Liberal party from both sides.

Let's be clear about this -- an election that is incapable of producing a government would be a political, economic and constitutional crisis.

And this is easy to do -- all you need is two out of three parties refusing coalitions. The NDP is right to reject a coalition with Harper -- it would be a non starter. This means that if the Liberals refuse a coalition, no party gets confidence and the Liberals refuse to share power when they lack a strong enough mandate of their own that we will have a deep crisis for the nation.

Of course the resolution of the crisis would be to remove the Liberal party from the landscape.

Personally part of this discussion is academic to me. I think Trudeau is lying and is open to a coalition and knows that it is very possible -- in the current climate. This discussion came out of Liberals suggesting he was truthful and means what he said. I have pointed out that if you consider what he said it cannot be true unless the Liberals were willing to potentially take the country over a cliff with them.

Mulcair ruled out a coalition when the Liberals were presumed to be no stronger than they were in 2011. He has had to change that given the current reality. But the NDP is not in the position the Liberals were in in 2011 and Trudeau cannot say what he is saying and mean it -- assuming he is not stupid.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Please do not feed the Liberal trolls. They make a set of assertions, and then we have hundreds of lines of text debating it. They do not answer back to what you say, so why bother doing it?

For a while there I was sitting there for hours writing posts. There is no point. Now I have a job anyway and I would be in trouble if I spent hours on Rabble.

How many Liberal voters can you switch to the NDP while you are writing a post on Rabble? The weather is nice out there now. It is time to hit the streets. On here, if you are trying to pitch the left you are preaching to the converted, and if you are trying to pitch the Liberals they don't care what you say anyway.

There are many suckers who think the Liberals will do this or do that, but remember, they do nothing unless it is good for Liberals.

Let the Liberals flail and dance merrily on the end of the fish hook.

Again, I think it is a good idea to merge the threats on the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition. We have 2 threads here on the same subject

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

montrealer58 wrote:

Please do not feed the Liberal trolls. They make a set of assertions, and then we have hundreds of lines of text debating it. They do not answer back to what you say, so why bother doing it?

For a while there I was sitting there for hours writing posts. There is no point. Now I have a job anyway and I would be in trouble if I spent hours on Rabble.

How many Liberal voters can you switch to the NDP while you are writing a post on Rabble? The weather is nice out there now. It is time to hit the streets. On here, if you are trying to pitch the left you are preaching to the converted, and if you are trying to pitch the Liberals they don't care what you say anyway.

There are many suckers who think the Liberals will do this or do that, but remember, they do nothing unless it is good for Liberals.

Let the Liberals flail and dance merrily on the end of the fish hook.

Again, I think it is a good idea to merge the threats (WHOOPS! FREUDIAN SLIP! I MEANT THREADS) on the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition. We have 2 threads here on the same subject

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

xx

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement.

You give me one comparable example -- anywhere in the world -- of a minority government where almost half the seats a government depends on to get confidence are from a party that is not from the governing party or parties and where these parties or party have no part of the government. This is what we are talking about. And if you can't find a relevant example to compare to -- stop this crap about conventions. There is a democratic principle here about governance that you clearly want to ignore in order to imagine that there is some kind of prerogative for the Liberals to claim power by themselves when they have a very small proportion of the seats in the House.

Constitutional convention -- bullshit. The normal convention is that when a party does not come close to enough seats they have coalition partners. To govern without anywhere near enough seats to command the House is unprecedented. There is no convention whatsoever that suggests that the GG would even have to accept this -- even if the NDP for some reason agreed. And there is no reason why the NDP would feel compelled to agree.

Yes I am annoyed -- you and Pondering keep talking in this thread without any acknowledgement of what is being said to you. Now, we have BS about constitutional conventions. But there is political convention: There is no history anywhere in the world where a major party in a parliament with a large proportion of seats compared to the government would be required to support the government but not get a share of power.

Parties with 10-20% of the seats of a governing party have in the past propped up a government that had a plurality informally.

When the governing party needed a few votes from the third party just to get to a plurality (Peterson/Rae) they used an accord even though the NDP was much, much smaller as something more formal was needed. In that case it still would have been legitimate for the NDP to demand cabinet positions if they wanted to.

But when the government requires large numbers of votes from another party a coalition is normally required to provide stability and adequate representation.

Today’s example --  where the Liberal party may get less than a third of the seats to govern without partners would likely be seen as illegitimate. A Liberal demand that another party has to support this without a share of power would be seen as grossly unreasonable except for the most drunk members of the Liberal party.

Stop the straw man nonsense: If the Liberals get a plurality-- they can govern and the NDP would have political difficulty bringing them down. But none of the polls are suggesting this is likely -- nevermind certain. And Trudeau has ruled out what is required in almost every election scenario now being projected.

Where the Liberals need the NDP just to come to more seats than the Conservatives -- political convention is that there be an Accord -- AT LEAST. But if the Liberals are not even close there is no way that they can justify asking the GG to allow a government without an adequate mandate.

The Constitutional convention is entirely around the requirement to show a stable proposal for governance. A party of 90 seats depending on a party of 80 seats without any sharing of power is NOT an argument for the minimum mandate and stability required. In this case the GG would be entirely in his rights to tell Trudeau to go get a coalition, ask if there are any other coalition options or call a new election. If it came to a new election there would be a economic, constitutional, and political crisis -- all precipitated by Trudeau being unwilling to participate in a coalition.

 

Note to Pondering: in a democracy we don't shut up about the potential for such problems. We have every right to demand that our leaders not come up with such stupid comments as what Trudeau has said. If he had kept his trap shut on this we would not be in this position. Now he has to walk it back otherwise he is a potential problem for the stability of the country. There is a presumption that parties going into an election are prepared to work with parliament to get a government by coalition if required when there is no strong plurality. Mulcair had to eat his own words (made from before he became leader) given the potential for a strong Liberal and NDP showing. Trudeau seems to be unaware of his obligations as a political leader going into an election to assure the nation that all means will be used to ensure there is a government with the confidence of parliament. Part of that is not to appoint yourself dictator over the other parties and demand they keep you in power without any arrangement -- when you have so few seats relative to the other parties.

 

 

I agree that it would be preferable if the LPC established a coalition with the NDP in the event that the LPC comes in second and the NDP comes in third and they are both far behind the CPC. I also agree that this is how things work in most of the world. Fortunately most of the countries in the world use proportional representation and this favours coalition government but unfortunately we in Canada are stuck with the FPTP system. So the only parliamentary system we can compare ourselves to is the UK, another country where coalitions are a difficult proposition to undertake. The Liberal Democrats are about to be decimated there because they chose to enter into a coalition there. I think the reason the LPC does not want to enter into a formal agreement with the NDP is because they are rightfully afraid that this would drive the right flank of their party to the CPC and this in turn would hand the CPC a phoney FPTP majority with something like 38% of the vote. If we had pr there would be no fear of this. Our FPTP system breaks down when more parties become serious contenders. If we had pr, coalitions would become the norm. That's one of the major reasons I support the NDP's proposal to implement MMP for the 2019 election.

Another majour problem in our system is that a government can fall on a motion other than an explicit non-confidence motion. This does create a kind of dictatorship where opposition parties can be forced to vote with the government or abstain in order to avoid an election. I think it would be wise if the House of Commons had to explicitly vote non-confidence in order to take down the government.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
ilha formosa wrote:

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.

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

 

 

If the CPC come in first, the NDP in second, and LPC in third, the NDP could form a minority government without a formal agreement with the LPC.

I think the second place party has the right to try to form a minority government even if it is far behind the first place party and even if the third place party is almost even with the second place party.

What you think is wrong.

The GG would not agree.

The people would see it as illigitimate

The economy and marklets would see it as unstable.

It would be politically toxic.

 

The NDP would not be so stupid -- that appreas to be a Liberal problem.

The NDP would understand that they would need to be very close to the third party to try it with an accord. They would need a coalition if they were far back. The NDP would invite coalition or would advise the GG that due to the intransigence of the other parties there is no government possible and reluctantly agree to a new election. They would then campaign on the fact that the Liberals are an obstruction to a functioning goverrnment. Trudeau would be gone.

I agree, now that the LPC has said that they will not enter into a governing agreement with the NDP after the election, things could become very dicey if the LPC comes in second and NDP comes in third and they are both far behind the CPC that fails to win a majority. I agree that if after the election the CPC throne speech is voted down the NDP would say that they are open to forming a coalition with the LPC. The LPC would probably then say that they won't because they promised the electorate they wouldn't enter into an agreement with the NDP. I think the LPC would then say that they are open to forming a minority government if the House Of Commons supports it. I think the NDP would then reply that for the interest of Canada they will support a LPC minority. On the other hand I agree that the NDP could say that the LPC is being unreasonable and that the country will have to have an election because the LPC is being selfish. The LPC would then likely retort that it is the NDP that is causing an unnecessary election. Both parties would likely blame each other for causing an unnecessary election and the voters would decided which party was to blame for causing an unwanted second election. Personally I'm not sure what the voters verdict would be and even if there would be a clear verdict. It might even be possible that the results of the second election would be similar to the first election and at that point things would be getting even more dicey as another CPC throne speech could be voted down again and the LPC could once again insist that they will not form a coalition with the NDP but are willing to form a minority government. At that point the Governor General would likely plead the parties to come to some kind of compromise.

JKR

montrealer58 wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

Please do not feed the Liberal trolls. They make a set of assertions, and then we have hundreds of lines of text debating it. They do not answer back to what you say, so why bother doing it?

For a while there I was sitting there for hours writing posts. There is no point. Now I have a job anyway and I would be in trouble if I spent hours on Rabble.

How many Liberal voters can you switch to the NDP while you are writing a post on Rabble? The weather is nice out there now. It is time to hit the streets. On here, if you are trying to pitch the left you are preaching to the converted, and if you are trying to pitch the Liberals they don't care what you say anyway.

There are many suckers who think the Liberals will do this or do that, but remember, they do nothing unless it is good for Liberals.

Let the Liberals flail and dance merrily on the end of the fish hook.

Again, I think it is a good idea to merge the threats (WHOOPS! FREUDIAN SLIP! I MEANT THREADS) on the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition. We have 2 threads here on the same subject

I agree that it can is frustrating reading posts that seem to be underhanded attempts to sabotage political parties. Personally when I post I try to treat the parties generically. Currently I am not a member of any party but in the very recent past I've been a member of the NDP. I consider myself to be a social democrat but that doesn't mean that I believe that opposition parties have to form coalitions with each other in order to replace a party that wins a plurality of the votes. I think second place parties could form minority governments.

nicky

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

Sean in Ottawa

nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

This is an interesting example--

But I have to say I don't think the example is comparable.

Most important -- the third party at the time did not want to share power so this was not about denying a third party a role it wanted. A coalition was definitely discussed and not rejected by Labour. It is the smaller party that declined (hoping Labour would stumble). A governor General could take into consideration a desire by a third party not to participate.

Secondly the third party was coming back from a near death experience (something like 30 seats). This would be more comparable to the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals and the Liberals supporting them.

It was also a gross miscalculation by the Liberals to give up their right to participate and resulted in the destruction of their party. Nobody would expect Mulcair to be so stupid.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

That's true.  The one budget they cooperated on was a great thing.  Martin should have continued to do this.  However, I believe due to the flack that came from the right-wing press and business community (I recall an extremely critical front-page editorial in the Globe and Mail by Ibbitson), he cowardly backed away.  It was too bad because Layton was willing to keep negotiating.  The Liberals shut them out of any further negotiations for support.  Even so, Layton tried to stall the defeat of the Martin government to allow the passage of the childcare and Kelowna bills, but Martin told him to stuff it.  Too bad.

Sean in Ottawa

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

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".

Paul Martin governed with the support of the NDP too.

That's true.  The one budget they cooperated on was a great thing.  Martin should have continued to do this.  However, I believe due to the flack that came from the right-wing press and business community (I recall an extremely critical front-page editorial in the Globe and Mail by Ibbitson), he cowardly backed away.  It was too bad because Layton was willing to keep negotiating.  The Liberals shut them out of any further negotiations for support.  Even so, Layton tried to stall the defeat of the Martin government to allow the passage of the childcare and Kelowna bills, but Martin told him to stuff it.  Too bad.

Sorry this is not accurate.

The scandal lost both parties the opportunity to do this. When the independents advised the government that they would oppose them, there was no longer a majority between the NDP and the Liberals. This meant that Layton was trying to negotiate without the numbers to make a difference. Martin told Layton to buzz off becuase Layton had nothing to offer once he no longer had the seats needed to keep the government in power. (Both the Liberals and the NDP had lost seats to independents who stated they wanted to bring down the government.)

If the Liberal scandal had not destroyed the ability of the NDP and Liberals to get a majority there is little doubt that they would have continued for another year and implemented these changes. Martin really was not to blame in this -- this is what his party and the scandal did to him. The NDP as well cannot be blamed.

There was a lot of support for the measures the NDP and Liberals had agreed to and the right wing press would not have stopped them had the scandal not destroyed the government.

What Martin did do wrong was a horrible campaign.

ilha formosa

JKR wrote:
I think the reason the LPC does not want to enter into a formal agreement with the NDP is because they are rightfully afraid that this would drive the right flank of their party to the CPC and this in turn would hand the CPC a phoney FPTP majority with something like 38% of the vote.

That’s rational.

JKR wrote:
I think second place parties could form minority governments.

Quote:
The second party (NDP or Liberal) could attempt to govern as a minority. — Duncan Cameron

Yet another possibility, a 2nd place party, somewhere between the other two on the political spectrum, governing on a case by case basis without a formal arrangement with any other party. It would have to be wary of displeasing both flanks at the same time.

Sean in Ottawa

ilha formosa wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think the reason the LPC does not want to enter into a formal agreement with the NDP is because they are rightfully afraid that this would drive the right flank of their party to the CPC and this in turn would hand the CPC a phoney FPTP majority with something like 38% of the vote.

That’s rational.

JKR wrote:
I think second place parties could form minority governments.

Quote:
The second party (NDP or Liberal) could attempt to govern as a minority. — Duncan Cameron

Yet another possibility, a 2nd place party, somewhere between the other two on the political spectrum, governing on a case by case basis without a formal arrangement with any other party. It would have to be wary of displeasing both flanks at the same time.

I don't think Cameron is suggesting this would be without coalition. In fact his article is saying that Trudeau is inevitably moving to work with Harper as that is what ruling out a coalition with the NDP prior to the start of a conversation means.

Second place parties do not need to work in colaiton with tiny parties if they need just a few extra votes but if they need a lot of support from a party not much smaller than they are a coalition is the form of government you can expect. More to the point if you take coalition off the table before you start to negotiate there unlikely to be a discussion at all.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

This is an interesting example--

But I have to say I don't think the example is comparable.

Most important -- the third party at the time did not want to share power so this was not about denying a third party a role it wanted. A coalition was definitely discussed and not rejected by Labour. It is the smaller party that declined (hoping Labour would stumble). A governor General could take into consideration a desire by a third party not to participate.

Secondly the third party was coming back from a near death experience (something like 30 seats). This would be more comparable to the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals and the Liberals supporting them.

It was also a gross miscalculation by the Liberals to give up their right to participate and resulted in the destruction of their party. Nobody would expect Mulcair to be so stupid.

Since the Liberals are a centrist party in the UK and here where we both have FPTP parliamentary systems, entering into coalitions is very problematic for Liberal parties because they have two flanks that need protection while parties like Labour, the NDP, and Conservatives historically have had only one flank to worry about. Although in this election in the UK, Labour has to worry about the SNP on their left flank and sure enough Labour has said that they will not be forming a coalition with the SNP. The Conservatives in the UK now have UKIP on their right flank and they too have said they will not form a coalition with them. The Liberal Democrats have now been reduced to a rump and are hoping to form a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, but their lack of seats may not allow them to play such a role again as they did during the last 5 years in the UK.

If the LPC forms a coalition with the NDP, they will likely lose a lot of support on their right side. This would likely push the LPC back into the mid 20% range in popularity. This would also likely push the CPC into the high 30's. The NDP in this scenerio would also likely average in the mid 20's. From this change caused by a LPC-NDP coalition, the CPC would become Canada's "natural governing party" even though it is supported only by a minority of the voters. This is because FPTP gives an unfair bonus to first place parties and gives an unfair penalty to parties that come a distant second. So an NDP-Liberal coalition would likely eventually lead to some kind of merger on the left in order to re-balance Canadian politics or more favourably it would lead to the establishment of electoral reform if the LPC and NDP are somehow able to implement it against the objections of the CPC.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ilha formosa wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think the reason the LPC does not want to enter into a formal agreement with the NDP is because they are rightfully afraid that this would drive the right flank of their party to the CPC and this in turn would hand the CPC a phoney FPTP majority with something like 38% of the vote.

That’s rational.

JKR wrote:
I think second place parties could form minority governments.

Quote:
The second party (NDP or Liberal) could attempt to govern as a minority. — Duncan Cameron

Yet another possibility, a 2nd place party, somewhere between the other two on the political spectrum, governing on a case by case basis without a formal arrangement with any other party. It would have to be wary of displeasing both flanks at the same time.

I don't think Cameron is suggesting this would be without coalition. In fact his article is saying that Trudeau is inevitably moving to work with Harper as that is what ruling out a coalition with the NDP prior to the start of a conversation means.

Second place parties do not need to work in colaiton with tiny parties if they need just a few extra votes but if they need a lot of support from a party not much smaller than they are a coalition is the form of government you can expect. More to the point if you take coalition off the table before you start to negotiate there unlikely to be a discussion at all.

I think by definition coalitions don't work on a case by case basis, while almost by definition minority governments do.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

This is an interesting example--

But I have to say I don't think the example is comparable.

Most important -- the third party at the time did not want to share power so this was not about denying a third party a role it wanted. A coalition was definitely discussed and not rejected by Labour. It is the smaller party that declined (hoping Labour would stumble). A governor General could take into consideration a desire by a third party not to participate.

Secondly the third party was coming back from a near death experience (something like 30 seats). This would be more comparable to the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals and the Liberals supporting them.

It was also a gross miscalculation by the Liberals to give up their right to participate and resulted in the destruction of their party. Nobody would expect Mulcair to be so stupid.

 

Since the Liberals are a centrist party in the UK and here where we both have FPTP parliamentary systems, entering into coalitions is very problematic for Liberal parties because they have two flanks that need protection while parties like Labour, the NDP, and Conservatives historically have had only one flank to worry about. Although in this election in the UK, Labour has to worry about the SNP on their left flank and sure enough Labour has said that they will not be forming a coalition with the SNP. The Conservatives in the UK now have UKIP on their right flank and they too have said they will not form a coalition with them. The Liberal Democrats have now been reduced to a rump and are hoping to form a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, but their lack of seats may not allow them to play such a role again as they did during the last 5 years in the UK.

If the LPC forms a coalition with the NDP, they will likely lose a lot of support on their right side. This would likely push the LPC back into the mid 20% range in popularity. This would also likely push the CPC into the high 30's. The NDP in this scenerio would also likely average in the mid 20's. From this change caused by a LPC-NDP coalition, the CPC would become Canada's "natural governing party" even though it is supported only by a minority of the voters. This is because FPTP gives an unfair bonus to first place parties and gives an unfair penalty to parties that come a distant second. So an NDP-Liberal coalition would likely eventually lead to some kind of merger on the left in order to re-balance Canadian politics or more favourably it would lead to the establishment of electoral reform if the LPC and NDP are somehow able to implement it against the objections of the CPC.

This is just your opinion -- and I think it is a poorly formed one at that.

The Liberals being in the middle have an ability to form coalitions with either side. The Liberal party demise in the Uk has to do with things irrelevant to this discussion.

In the present circumstance Liberals can either be part of the opposition to the Liberals are be made irrelevant by avoiding doing so.

The conjecture that the Liberals would lose more by working with the NDP than by working with the Conservatives is made up. The idea that the Liebals can gain more out of sitting on the fence is completely unsupported.

The best scenario for the Liebrals is to get enough seats that they do not need a coalition. Should they fail to do so avoiding a coalition would likely destroy them as they would become an obstacle to the formation of government.

Your arguments in this thread very are weak in this respect.

If the Liberals at least double the NDP in seats and come reasonably close to the Conservatives they would have  a bargaining position that is better (for them) than if they are close tot he NDP and far from the Conservatives. In the latter scenario the Liberals would face destruction if they prevented the replacement of Harper when they had the ability to do so. If they tried to claim power for themselves when they had such a small caucus they would be hammered by every other party, the public and experts. Canadians would not expect a party of under 100 to govern a House of well over 300 seats. More to the point the GG is never going to let a minority party without a formal arrangement, that has no plurality and a low seat count take over the Government. If Liberals were to try to fight that publicly they would like see their own MPs walk away.

To suggest that an unrealistic position with the NDP, working with Harper, or pushing parliament to the unworkable by lack of power sharing is less risky or damaging to the Liberal party is fantasy.

The NDP can accept Liberals crossing to join a coalition government even if the leader decided he wanted to sit by himself.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

ilha formosa wrote:

JKR wrote:
I think the reason the LPC does not want to enter into a formal agreement with the NDP is because they are rightfully afraid that this would drive the right flank of their party to the CPC and this in turn would hand the CPC a phoney FPTP majority with something like 38% of the vote.

That’s rational.

JKR wrote:
I think second place parties could form minority governments.

Quote:
The second party (NDP or Liberal) could attempt to govern as a minority. — Duncan Cameron

Yet another possibility, a 2nd place party, somewhere between the other two on the political spectrum, governing on a case by case basis without a formal arrangement with any other party. It would have to be wary of displeasing both flanks at the same time.

I don't think Cameron is suggesting this would be without coalition. In fact his article is saying that Trudeau is inevitably moving to work with Harper as that is what ruling out a coalition with the NDP prior to the start of a conversation means.

Second place parties do not need to work in colaiton with tiny parties if they need just a few extra votes but if they need a lot of support from a party not much smaller than they are a coalition is the form of government you can expect. More to the point if you take coalition off the table before you start to negotiate there unlikely to be a discussion at all.

 

I think by definition coalitions don't work on a case by case basis, while almost by definition minority governments do.

Huh?????

I think it is getting pointless to continue this discussion. With respect to your other opinions-- you have no idea what you are talking about when speaking about coalitons and how parliament works.  Coalitions ARE NOT done on a case by case basis -- that is the point.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Coalitions ARE NOT done on a case by case basis -- that is the point.

Coalitions are not done on a case by case basis. That's what I said.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

This is an interesting example--

But I have to say I don't think the example is comparable.

Most important -- the third party at the time did not want to share power so this was not about denying a third party a role it wanted. A coalition was definitely discussed and not rejected by Labour. It is the smaller party that declined (hoping Labour would stumble). A governor General could take into consideration a desire by a third party not to participate.

Secondly the third party was coming back from a near death experience (something like 30 seats). This would be more comparable to the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals and the Liberals supporting them.

It was also a gross miscalculation by the Liberals to give up their right to participate and resulted in the destruction of their party. Nobody would expect Mulcair to be so stupid.

 

Since the Liberals are a centrist party in the UK and here where we both have FPTP parliamentary systems, entering into coalitions is very problematic for Liberal parties because they have two flanks that need protection while parties like Labour, the NDP, and Conservatives historically have had only one flank to worry about. Although in this election in the UK, Labour has to worry about the SNP on their left flank and sure enough Labour has said that they will not be forming a coalition with the SNP. The Conservatives in the UK now have UKIP on their right flank and they too have said they will not form a coalition with them. The Liberal Democrats have now been reduced to a rump and are hoping to form a coalition with either the Conservatives or Labour, but their lack of seats may not allow them to play such a role again as they did during the last 5 years in the UK.

If the LPC forms a coalition with the NDP, they will likely lose a lot of support on their right side. This would likely push the LPC back into the mid 20% range in popularity. This would also likely push the CPC into the high 30's. The NDP in this scenerio would also likely average in the mid 20's. From this change caused by a LPC-NDP coalition, the CPC would become Canada's "natural governing party" even though it is supported only by a minority of the voters. This is because FPTP gives an unfair bonus to first place parties and gives an unfair penalty to parties that come a distant second. So an NDP-Liberal coalition would likely eventually lead to some kind of merger on the left in order to re-balance Canadian politics or more favourably it would lead to the establishment of electoral reform if the LPC and NDP are somehow able to implement it against the objections of the CPC.

This is just your opinion -- and I think it is a poorly formed one at that.

The Liberals being in the middle have an ability to form coalitions with either side. The Liberal party demise in the Uk has to do with things irrelevant to this discussion.

In the present circumstance Liberals can either be part of the opposition to the Liberals are be made irrelevant by avoiding doing so.

The conjecture that the Liberals would lose more by working with the NDP than by working with the Conservatives is made up. The idea that the Liebals can gain more out of sitting on the fence is completely unsupported.

The best scenario for the Liebrals is to get enough seats that they do not need a coalition. Should they fail to do so avoiding a coalition would likely destroy them as they would become an obstacle to the formation of government.

Your arguments in this thread very are weak in this respect.

If the Liberals at least double the NDP in seats and come reasonably close to the Conservatives they would have  a bargaining position that is better (for them) than if they are close tot he NDP and far from the Conservatives. In the latter scenario the Liberals would face destruction if they prevented the replacement of Harper when they had the ability to do so. If they tried to claim power for themselves when they had such a small caucus they would be hammered by every other party, the public and experts. Canadians would not expect a party of under 100 to govern a House of well over 300 seats. More to the point the GG is never going to let a minority party without a formal arrangement, that has no plurality and a low seat count take over the Government. If Liberals were to try to fight that publicly they would like see their own MPs walk away.

To suggest that an unrealistic position with the NDP, working with Harper, or pushing parliament to the unworkable by lack of power sharing is less risky or damaging to the Liberal party is fantasy.

The NDP can accept Liberals crossing to join a coalition government even if the leader decided he wanted to sit by himself.

So why do you think the LPC has said that they will not form a coalition with the NDP?

JKR

nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

These are the kinds of precedents I was referring to. Reading up on Eugene Forsey's work might be helpful for this election that might put Canada in new constitutional territory.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

The Liberals will not be able to govern without the support of the NDP, assumng Trudeau isn't another Ignatief. Sean, stop wasting your time. Its pointless. Hey you Libs, Justing is not being crowned King, got it?

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

I've always voted for the NDP, federally and provincially, but I don't view others who support other political parties as being the enemy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

 

I've always voted for the NDP, federally and provincially, but I don't view others who support other political parties as being the enemy.

I've never had that problem; they ARE the enemy!

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

 

I've always voted for the NDP, federally and provincially, but I don't view others who support other political parties as being the enemy.

I've never had that problem; they ARE the enemy!

As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

The Liberals will not be able to govern without the support of the NDP, assumng Trudeau isn't another Ignatief. Sean, stop wasting your time. Its pointless. Hey you Libs, Justing is not being crowned King, got it?

Prime Ministers have to maintain the confidence of the House of Commons so there will be no coronation even for His Royal Highness Justin Trudeau.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

 

I've always voted for the NDP, federally and provincially, but I don't view others who support other political parties as being the enemy.

I've never had that problem; they ARE the enemy!

You will never win support from people who vote for other parties with that attitude. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

JKR wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

I wish LPC partisans on his board would stop making things up and offering it as "opinion", or worse yet, fact. If I had done that in school, I'd have got an F. I'm just sayin'!

 

I wish NDP partisans would not expect everyone else to cheer lead and spin info for the NDP.

I wish LPC partisans would stop projecting!

 

I've always voted for the NDP, federally and provincially, but I don't view others who support other political parties as being the enemy.

I've never had that problem; they ARE the enemy!

You will never win support from people who vote for other parties with that attitude. 

I'm not looking to convert blantantly partisan Libs on here. So, it doesn't matter.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
nicky wrote:

JKR wrote:

 

If the NDP comes very close to a second place LPC and the CPC has a clear plurality, I think the LPC will still insist on forming a minority government without entering into a formal agreement with the NDP. I think constitutional convention will allow the LPC to take this stance.

 

 Ans Sean responded:

There is absolutely no support for this made up statement

 

Sean, what about the UK in 1924? Labour came second and formed a minority government with the forebearance of the Liberals, not through a coalition with them.

I don't know enough to say this is exact support for JKR's assertion but it looks close.

I think Forsey has similar examples in his book on Disolution of Parliament which I read too long ago to remember precisely.

 

 

These are the kinds of precedents I was referring to. Reading up on Eugene Forsey's work might be helpful for this election that might put Canada in new constitutional territory.

 

I answered this already.

The 1924 example (that comes before most Women got the vote even) is not relevant. The third party did not want to participate in government -- it had only 30 seats in the previous election in a larger parliament than Canada's. In fact the largest party also did not want to share in government.

The Conservatives and the Liberals had campaigned with some positions in common and if there had been a coalition it would have been Baldwin-Asquith not MacDonald. The two older parties enabled Labour to govern becuase they did not want to work with each other at the time and each had good reasons not to want government.

The government lasted less than a year and the third party was wiped out.

This is not an example anyone should use with a straight face in our context. It might be used to support why no third party has ever agreed to do something like this again. It might be an example of how unstable and bad an idea it is to do it. It certainly would not represent a case that it is correct or normal to do this.

Ask yourself while you go back almost a century to scrape the barrel how many coalition government have existed since?

Consider the maturity of the role of GG since as well -- that the only significant obligation a GG has is to ensure a stable government . Asking a party withabout a third of the seats to govern alone with no formal arrangement is hardle a prescription for stability.

JKR -- you have twisted this beyond reason. Is there any stopping you on this?

This is if anything the exception that proves the rule -- it is telling that you have to draw such an old and very bad example. And it is not even what we were talking about -- a party ruling out offering a share of power. This was an unusual example of a second party governing becuase at the time none of the other parties wanted power. I can assure you that this is not in the cards for October.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

There appears to be confusion on this thread regarding the post-election forming of the gevernment and the presenting of a throne speech.

The first thing the house does when it meets after the election is to elect the speaker of the house. It then elects the Prime Minister. only after being elected Prime Minister can that person nominate a cabinet and present a throne speech.

The house elects a Prime Minister by nominating an MP for this position, and then having a majority of MPs vote yay to the motion. This is called seeking the confidence of the house, and the GG can ask any MP to seek the confidence of the house if the GG thinks the MP can get it.

Only an MP who has won the confidence of the house/been elected Prime Minister can be asked to present a throne speech.

Pages