Latest polling thread Feb. 25th, 2015

416 posts / 0 new
Last post
montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

<sarcasm>

Wynne selling off former Ontario Hydro assets and the Couillard austerity agenda will remind progressive voters of what a great party the Liberals are.

</sarcasm>

 

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:
Trudeau will not cooperate with the NDP, which means that if he gets a minority (which is all he can be trusted with now) he is going to have to look for some cooperation from another party. This could work for him if the Conservatives become a third-party rump and the NDP form the opposition.

Do you mean the NDP won't cooperate with Trudeau if he gets a minority because if Trudeau gets a minority it will be up to the NDP to cooperate not up to the Liberals. The Liberals will present legislation. All the NDP has to do is decide whether or not to support it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:
Trudeau will not cooperate with the NDP, which means that if he gets a minority (which is all he can be trusted with now) he is going to have to look for some cooperation from another party. This could work for him if the Conservatives become a third-party rump and the NDP form the opposition.

Do you mean the NDP won't cooperate with Trudeau if he gets a minority because if Trudeau gets a minority it will be up to the NDP to cooperate not up to the Liberals. The Liberals will present legislation. All the NDP has to do is decide whether or not to support it.

Pondering, did you read anything Sean wrote? You know, he knows what he's talking about and you are sloughing off what he says over and over. Its disrespectful. Trudeau can't govern like he's got a majority; his government will fall quickly, and although you might think otherwise, hell wear it. Do you Liberals ever act with anything but arrogance? Great, fill your boots. Its going to make it easier to knock you guys off this Fall, Candians don't like arrogance, and it'll be Trudeau's downfall. But good luck with that.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Trudeau has said he will not work with the NDP. There is no give and take here. You give nothing, you take nothing. Trudeau can just as easily get Conservatives to vote for his legislation as he can NDPs, in the fine Liberal-Conservative tradition since Paul Martin.

If Harper takes the Conservatives to a complete disaster (and his testiness on TV today sure looked like he was feeling desperate from internal polling), Canada is going to need another right-wing government. Trudeau is planning on being that right-wing leader.

Trudeau seems to be testy, and has a "white hot" temper of his own. He is a perfect replacement for Harper in so many ways: Let me count a few political ones which particularly annoy progressives.

1: PPPs

2: Uncritical support of Israel

3: C-51

There are others, but those are enough to show that Trudeau is no friend to people who like government-owned public services, Canada's reputation as a rational player in the world at large, and civil liberties for Canadians. That is good enough for me!

 

Sean in Ottawa

I guess Pondering is presuming that the Liberals will have such a lead over the NDP that they won't need to offer a coalition. In her mind it is unthinkable that Trudeau would get less than a strong enough lead over the NDP that Trudeau would not have to consider the NDP as a partner in government.

She is a propaganda processing machine in the same way that a meat company makes sausage.

She has argued effectively that if Trudeau got one seat more than the NDP that he should  sit in government with the NDP forming his back bench with no share of power. Her idea is that Canadians would think that it is perfectly normal for a party to be close to half of the governing votes without any representation in cabinet or say in the program of government. She believes that if the NDP complains, the Liberals will be able to convince Canadians that their right to dictatorship should trump fairness and representation. 

There is no conversation with her.

But let us not forget that the hallmark of the Liberal vision of the 21st century can be summed up in the understanding that a basic dictatorship gets things done.

It is fine that she thinks this.

I used to hate the Liberal party. It was wearing off somewhat due to years of almost irrelevance. But Pondering has very effectively brought back a firm desire in me to see the Liberal party smashed to nothingness. She has reminded me of the understanding that the Liberal party is the greatest obstacle to progress in Canada. It sucks up enough of the Centre vote to leave the Conservatives a clear shot at power and when it governs it supports an agenda not far off the Conservatives. We understand that greed will always exist and the powerful will use the Conservatives as their champion. But the Liberal party, lying and misrepresenting, promising and letting us down is not an essential part of the political landscape. They are the polution that makes it hard to see and avoid the storms of the Conservatives.

As always it can be summed up that for most Canadians the Conservatives promise to screw us and in that they never let us down. The Liberals promise to be on our side but when the chips are down they never are.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

And yes it is true that I cannot rule out the idea of my voting Liberal one day.

All it would require is reincarnation, and a lack of judgment, compassion and awareness in a future life.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:
Trudeau will not cooperate with the NDP, which means that if he gets a minority (which is all he can be trusted with now) he is going to have to look for some cooperation from another party. This could work for him if the Conservatives become a third-party rump and the NDP form the opposition.

Do you mean the NDP won't cooperate with Trudeau if he gets a minority because if Trudeau gets a minority it will be up to the NDP to cooperate not up to the Liberals. The Liberals will present legislation. All the NDP has to do is decide whether or not to support it.

Pondering, did you read anything Sean wrote? You know, he knows what he's talking about and you are sloughing off what he says over and over. Its disrespectful. Trudeau can't govern like he's got a majority; his government will fall quickly, and although you might think otherwise, hell wear it. Do you Liberals ever act with anything but arrogance? Great, fill your boots. Its going to make it easier to knock you guys off this Fall, Candians don't like arrogance, and it'll be Trudeau's downfall. But good luck with that.

LOL, Sean is not an authority on the Liberals or on Canadian politics in general. It is not disrespectful to disagree with him.

Harper governed like he had a majority and look where that got him, a majority.

The norm in Canada has been for minority governments to govern as though they have a majority. It is not arrogant to expect the same to continue. I don't see why Canadians would suddenly find this unreasonable.

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

Trudeau has said he will not work with the NDP.

That's not even close to being true.

There is a huge space between "not working with" and "not forming a coalition with". 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

We are not going to accept such splitting of hairs.

The Liberal Party has rejected the NDP. That is fine.

Trudeau has turned down the NDP, and we know his party favours the Conservatives.

Trudeau will work with the Conservatives, as his party has done since Paul Martin.

Anyone trying to sell us any other version of events is not aware of the history of the Canadian parliament since 2004, or wishes to spread lies.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Canadians, Conservative, and NDPs are going to want to know whose side are you on.

You can be on the side of the megacorporations like Enbridge who want to take over Ontario's hydro, or you can be on the side of the people.

You'll not be allowed to sit on the fence this time.

You are going the way of the British Liberal Democrats.

I'll not be seeing you in the political graveyard.

You are less relevant to the political conversation than the Rhinoceros Party.

Get over yourselves. You are history.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:
Trudeau will not cooperate with the NDP, which means that if he gets a minority (which is all he can be trusted with now) he is going to have to look for some cooperation from another party. This could work for him if the Conservatives become a third-party rump and the NDP form the opposition.

Do you mean the NDP won't cooperate with Trudeau if he gets a minority because if Trudeau gets a minority it will be up to the NDP to cooperate not up to the Liberals. The Liberals will present legislation. All the NDP has to do is decide whether or not to support it.

Pondering, did you read anything Sean wrote? You know, he knows what he's talking about and you are sloughing off what he says over and over. Its disrespectful. Trudeau can't govern like he's got a majority; his government will fall quickly, and although you might think otherwise, hell wear it. Do you Liberals ever act with anything but arrogance? Great, fill your boots. Its going to make it easier to knock you guys off this Fall, Candians don't like arrogance, and it'll be Trudeau's downfall. But good luck with that.

LOL, Sean is not an authority on the Liberals or on Canadian politics in general. It is not disrespectful to disagree with him.

Harper governed like he had a majority and look where that got him, a majority.

The norm in Canada has been for minority governments to govern as though they have a majority. It is not arrogant to expect the same to continue. I don't see why Canadians would suddenly find this unreasonable.

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

Pondering, once again, you are projecting. What did you do, cover all the mirrors in your house do you wouldn't have to look at them?

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I guess Pondering is presuming that the Liberals will have such a lead over the NDP that they won't need to offer a coalition. In her mind it is unthinkable that Trudeau would get less than a strong enough lead over the NDP that Trudeau would not have to consider the NDP as a partner in government.

No, I think the Liberals will win a minority government. That is not an unreasonable opinion.

Your scenario in which Trudeau chooses to defeat the Harper government but then refuses to work with the NDP will never happen.

You are trying to frame it as the Liberals being limited to two choices. Either working with the Conservatives or working with the NDP. The Liberals don't have to work with either. They can win a minority and govern on their own. If Harper wins then Liberals hold their noses and proceed on a case by case basis. That doesn't mean they are "working with" the Conservatives.  Alternately they could form some sort of agreement with the NDP depending on the balance of votes.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
She is a propaganda processing machine in the same way that a meat company makes sausage.

Pot meet kettle.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
She has argued effectively that if Trudeau got one seat more than the NDP that he should  sit in government with the NDP forming his back bench with no share of power.

If Trudeau wins the election as in gets the most number of seats then he sits in government on his own as is the norm in Canada.

The NDP does not form his backbench or anything else. They are just another political party like the Conservatives and Greens etc. with MPs that are free to vote for or against legislation.

If Harper wins the most seats then he continues to govern until such time as he is defeated. That would result in either another election or the Liberals and NDP working together in some fashion.

You are severely lacking in reading comprehension so it would be much better if you focus on expressing your own thoughts rather than trying to reiterate my views.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I used to hate the Liberal party. It was wearing off somewhat due to years of almost irrelevance. But Pondering has very effectively brought back a firm desire in me to see the Liberal party smashed to nothingness.

It didn't wear off you just got arrogant and complacent because you believed the NDP had replaced the Liberals as the official opposition forever. You could afford to be magnanimous.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
She has reminded me of the understanding that the Liberal party is the greatest obstacle to progress in Canada. It sucks up enough of the Centre vote to leave the Conservatives a clear shot at power and when it governs it supports an agenda not far off the Conservatives. We understand that greed will always exist and the powerful will use the Conservatives as their champion. But the Liberal party, lying and misrepresenting, promising and letting us down is not an essential part of the political landscape. They are the polution that makes it hard to see and avoid the storms of the Conservatives.

There is no party in Canada willing to denounce the neoliberal agenda. Most Canadians are centrists which is why both the Conservatives and the NDP are constantly trying to occupy that space. The Liberals being there too does not make Canadians more or less centrist. If only the Conservatives and NDP existed the most centrist would win so over time they would become like the Democrats and Republicans.

In my opinion it is because we have three distinct parties we have been able to keep more of an ideological spread between them.

If only the Conservatives and Liberals existed, our centre would move more towards the right, if only the Conservatives and the NDP existed, the centre would remain the same, if only the Liberals and NDP exist, the centre will move slightly to the left. I vote for the Liberals and NDP to remain two separate and distinct parties and for the Conservatives to fade away.

 

 

sherpa-finn

I can't believe I have to keep on explaining and re-explaining these simple political realities to Debater and Pondering, but OK, - just for old time's sake.

For better or for worse, Canada's political centre of gravity has shifted to the right over the past twenty years. To build its base, the NDP has no choice but to try and win the support of left-leaning Liberals.  And Tom Mulcair is just the sort of guy to do that.

For its part, the Liberal Party has to try and win (back) the support of right-leaning Liberals and Red Tories. And Justin Trudeau is so not the guy to do that.

So I understand Pondering's plaintive cries to the NDP to "Run to the Left! Run to the Left!"  It is not going to happen. It makes no political sense for anyone but the Liberals. The best progressive Canadians can hope for is that NDP will broaden its vote and base by leaning to the Centre and then governing - or compelling the Liberals to govern - to the (moderate) left.  Its not pretty, but it is what it is.

The fact that the Liberal Party cannot get its act together and win back enough of the centre-right voters to stop another Conservative majority is no one's fault but their own.  Where's John Manley or Frank McKenna when you need him? 

And thus endeth the lesson.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

sherpa-finn wrote:

I can't believe I have to keep on explaining and re-explaining these simple political realities to Debater and Pondering, but OK, - just for old time's sake.

For better or for worse, Canada's political centre of gravity has shifted to the right over the past twenty years. To build its base, the NDP has no choice but to try and win the support of left-leaning Liberals.  And Tom Mulcair is just the sort of guy to do that.

For its part, the Liberal Party has to try and win (back) the support of right-leaning Liberals and Red Tories. And Justin Trudeau is so not the guy to do that.

So I understand Pondering's plaintive cries to the NDP to "Run to the Left! Run to the Left!"  It is not going to happen. It makes no political sense for anyone but the Liberals. The best progressive Canadians can hope for is that NDP will broaden its vote and base by leaning to the Centre and then governing - or compelling the Liberals to govern - to the (moderate) left.  Its not pretty, but it is what it is.

The fact that the Liberal Party cannot get its act together and win back enough of the centre-right voters to stop another Conservative majority is no one's fault but their own.  Where's John Manley or Frank McKenna when you need him? 

And thus endeth the lesson.

NAILED IT!!!!!!!!

NorthReport

The latest poll out today shows the NDP only 4% behind the Liberals.

Trudeau's idiotic comments about not being willing to work with Mulcair is costing him big time with the voting public. All we have to do now is wait for a couple of more pontifications from Trudeau and the Liberals may well be surpassed by the Mulcair-led NDP. 

Some posters have the wisdom to run for the hills when there are polling results like this. Others not so much.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

NorthReport wrote:

The latest poll out today shows the NDP only 4% behind the Liberals.

Trudeau's idiotic comments about not being willing to work with Mulcair is costing him big time with the voting public. All we have to do now is wait for a couple of more pontifications from Trudeau and the Liberals may well be surpassed by the Mulcair-led NDP. 

Some posters have the wisdom to run for the hills when there are polling results like this. Others not so much.

Which one?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

All we have to do on the NDP side is NOT BLOW IT!!!

Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau are the best possible assets for the NDP right now.

We have a whole six months of entertainment by Duffy, Brazeau, and Wallin media histrionics, Harper petulance, and Trudeaupian  misdemeanour. This should be great!

The NDP have a shot at Ontario (Wynne Hydro selloff), Quebec (it is what it is), BC (Oil Spill), and AB (eventually things might have to change)

The BC Green party has a feces problem, which the NDP should not forget on the doorstep. The people of Seattle want answers, and they are our neighbors too.

Run run run!

Northern PoV

"Some posters have the wisdom to run for the hills when there are polling results like this. Others not so much."

Polls are for dogs. I ain't runnin' nowhere.

The anti-Harper voters will coalesce around the leader they think will lead them out of their 8 year national nightmare.

I hope and believe that will be Justin because NDP polling stength = Harper majority.

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The usual Liberal lie which has led to Liberal-Conservative hegemony for 148 years.

The NDP have formed governments all across Canada, in a 3-party system.

The NDP is the only party which gets rid of Conservative POLICY as well as the Conservative PARTY.

Liberal trolls seem to think we do not know the difference.

Justin Trudeau does not have the leadership skills necessary to run Canada, which will be the second consideration after stopping Harper.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

And it IS a lie, because NDP polling strength is NOT leading to a Conservative majority.

But of course, Liberals are liars.

Northern PoV

montrealer58 wrote:

And it IS a lie, because NDP polling strength is NOT leading to a Conservative majority.

This is exactly what happened in 2011:

Harpers' 30% base plus 10% swing voters afraid of the 'socialist hordes' = majority gov't.  

Another celebration for the NDP if you come second again?

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:
For better or for worse, Canada's political centre of gravity has shifted to the right over the past twenty years. To build its base, the NDP has no choice but to try and win the support of left-leaning Liberals.  And Tom Mulcair is just the sort of guy to do that.

Yes it has but the NDP does have choices. It could take a longer view and aim to be the party ready to take over as the climate change hits become harder to recover from. It could speak out firmly against for profit daycare, oil sands expansion, NAFTA and CETA. It's true they would not win in 2015 if they did so but they might win in 2019.

sherpa-finn wrote:
So I understand Pondering's plaintive cries to the NDP to "Run to the Left! Run to the Left!"  It is not going to happen. It makes no political sense for anyone but teh Liberals. The best progressive Canadians can hope for is that NDP will broaden iots vote and base by leaning to the Centre and then governing - or compelling the Liberals to govern - to the (moderate) left.  Its not pretty, but it is what it is.

So the best progressives in Canada can hope for is continued neoliberalism and destruction of the planet.

 

sherpa-finn wrote:
For its part, the Liberal Party has to try and win (back) the support of right-leaning Liberals and Red Tories. And Justin Trudeau is so not the guy to do that. .................The fact that the Liberal Party cannot get its act together and win back enough of the centre-right voters to stop another Conservative majority is no one's fault but their own.  Where's John Manley or Frank McKenna when you need him?

According to you and maybe some rightwing pundits they can't. I say they are getting their act together and will win the next election without any help from the NDP.

sherpa-finn wrote:
I can't believe I have to keep on explaining and re-explaining these simple political realities to Debater and Pondering, but OK, - just for old time's sake.

I can't believe I have to keep on explaining and re-explaining the simple political reality to some posters here that the Liberal party is far from dead and they plan on winning the next election.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:

 

LOL, Sean is not an authority on the Liberals or on Canadian politics in general. It is not disrespectful to disagree with him.

Harper governed like he had a majority and look where that got him, a majority.

The norm in Canada has been for minority governments to govern as though they have a majority. It is not arrogant to expect the same to continue. I don't see why Canadians would suddenly find this unreasonable.

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering, once again, you are projecting. What did you do, cover all the mirrors in your house do you wouldn't have to look at them?

That's Canadian history not projecting.

NorthReport

Liberals are now only 4% ahead of the NDP.  It is now not going to take many more Trudeau gaffes to vault the NDP into 2nd place. 

Notice how the coverage has changed from "can Trudeau defeat Harper" to "can either Mulcair or Trudeau defeat Harper".  

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

But you are still wrong. That is not how it works. You want to make up your own reality that's okay but it sure isn't factual.

If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party. There is no rule about the biggest party getting the nod. Please stop making up garbage.

And if Harper is the second largest party he could still meet the House and see if the Liberals will support him. If theya re like you and so up-tight about an NDP government who knows?

 

Jacob Two-Two

If the Cons get a plurality, Harper will seek the confidence of the house, and the Liberals will vote with them. A shocked press corp will inquire as to what Justin might have been thinking, and he will reply that of course he opposes the Conservatives, but he had to vote for them to keep government or Harper might use it to attack him politically. Pondering will write endless posts on how Justin is being smart and prudent, "keeping his powder dry", and "playing his cards close to his chest". Everyone will be utterly bewildered and the Liberal party will cease to exist after the following election.

Jacob Two-Two

Northern PoV wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

And it IS a lie, because NDP polling strength is NOT leading to a Conservative majority.

This is exactly what happened in 2011:

Harpers' 30% base plus 10% swing voters afraid of the 'socialist hordes' = majority gov't.  

Another celebration for the NDP if you come second again?

That was not at all what happened in 2011. There was no 10% of voters who switched after the NDP started surging. It was more like 2% and it's unllikely it was really fear of the NDP that made them vote Conservative. It was probably the terrible, terrible Liberal campaign. That makes more sense.

But more importantly, this coming election is not 2011. The NDP are going in stronger than last election, and Harper is going in much weaker. Last time, a Liberal collapse seemed impossible. Now that's it's already happened once, it's almost expected.

Every election, the votes surge back to the Libs when they get get their new leader, and slowly bleed away as voters realise they still don't have their shit together. Every time they come out with less support than before. So if the Liberals don't rally the voters around them this time, they aren't going to come out with 18% again. They'll come out much lower. They'll crater completely and the NDP will take those votes and take government.

So you don't have to worry about a retread of 2011. That's not going to happen. The dynamics are totally different. You do have to worry about your party becoming a complete political irrelevency though.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

But you are still wrong. That is not how it works. You want to make up your own reality that's okay but it sure isn't factual.

If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party. There is no rule about the biggest party getting the nod. Please stop making up garbage.

And if Harper is the second largest party he could still meet the House and see if the Liberals will support him. If theya re like you and so up-tight about an NDP government who knows?

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Yes, as the sitting government Harper has first crack if he doesn't resign. I don't know of anyone who thinks Harper will try to cling to power if he doesn't win the most seats. If he did the Liberals and NDP would vote him down and whichever won the most seats would be approached by the GG to form government.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-37-e.htm?cat...

4.2.2 If there is no clear majority, which party is entitled to be asked to form a government first – the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or the incumbent party?

If there is no clear majority, the incumbent Prime Minister is given the choice of resigning or meeting the House to see if his or her party has the confidence of the House.18

4.2.3 If there is no clear majority and the government resigns, how is the Prime Minister determined?

Should the incumbent Prime Minister and Cabinet resign in the event there is no clear majority, the Governor General would probably ask the leader of the opposition party most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House to form a government.  The confidence of the House might be evidenced through an informal agreement or a coalition between parties.

In almost every case, the Governor General has chosen as the Prime Minister the leader of the party that has received the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, even if it is not the majority.19

Notice there is not need for the leader to prove he has the confidence of the house.

We have had many minority parliaments in Canada and the GG follows convention. Convention is to ask the party with the most seats if they can form a government. The party does not have to convince the GG to give them a chance. It would be a constitutional crisis if the GG did not allow the party with the most seats to address the house in a speech to the throne. (unless it is because the PM refused to resign and made a deal with another party to stay in power.)

At that point if they chose to the NDP could vote against the Liberals after which the NDP would be expected to make a deal with the Conservatives or there would be another election.

This notion you have that if the Liberals win a plurality of seats they can't govern without the NDP is false.

4.4.2  What types of arrangements are possible for political parties to work together?  What are the differences between them? What precedents exist?

Political scientist Linda Geller-Schwartz has identified five modes of cooperation for minority governments.  They range from a coalition through a formal pact, an informal understanding, ad hoc majorities on each issue, and opposition party restraint while the government acts as though it had a majority.28

At the federal level in Canada, there have been no coalition governments as a result of a minority situation.  Neither have there been formal agreements on cooperation between parties.

There was an informal understanding between the Liberal Party and the NDP between 1972 and 1974.

The looser form of cooperation that Geller-Schwartz refers to as “ad hoc majorities” was evident during the minority governments of Mackenzie King during the 1920s, as well as during parts of the Pearson minority governments of the 1960s.

The mode in which parties cooperate the least sees opposition parties acting with restraint for fear of precipitating an election in which they expect to lose seats, and the government acting as though it had a majority.  This mode was evident during the Diefenbaker governments of the 1950s and 1960s, during the early days of the Pearson governments, and during the Clark government of 1979.

Parties winning a plurality of votes have never had to approach any other party before the speech to the throne.

At the federal level in Canada, there have been no coalition governments as a result of a minority situation.  Neither have there been formal agreements on cooperation between parties.

And yet Canada has had many minority governments. If the Liberals recieve a purality of votes and Harper resigns as per convention the Liberals will have an opportunity to face the house and the Conservatives and NDP will have a chance to vote them out. Then the NDP and the Conservatives can form a coalition and offer to form government or we would have another election.

You are the one trying to construct a fantasy in which the only way the Liberals can form government alone is if they win a majority. That just isn't the case and never has been in Canadian history.

Northern PoV

"You do have to worry about your party becoming a complete political irrelevency though."

I worry about Canada (and the world).  Political parties can come and go.  I've worked the phones and the door steps and the ballot scuttineering for both the NDP and Liberals over the years.  Voted Green a few times and even PC once (only vote I regret.)  Our best bet this time is Justin, hence my support. 

The demise of the Liberal Party in the UK has led to long term Con dominance there.  

Reminder: an NDP second place with a Harper win is not a good outcome. (Unless you've enjoyed the last 4 years.)

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Harper does not have enough to make a majority. People are actually angry at Harper, and this anger is reaching up into the management echelons. Harper's majority was capped by a shift of Liberal 905 votes to the Tories, engineered largely by James Moore. These votes have gone back to the Liberals in droves, and good for them.

Past elections are no predictor of future results. Votes are shifting. Conservatives are changing their minds. Even the PC Party in Alberta is being propped up by Liberal shills on the wretched Power and Politics.

The NDP was won provincially on several occasions, with 2 other parties to contend with. So you can't use the crap line that they have "no chance"

As Justin Trudeau shows extremely bad judgement by supporting C-51 and Harper's stand on Middle Eastern issues, how can we take seriously the judgement of anyone who supports Justin Trudeau? Ignatieff is still calling the shots.

If you say he had to do these things for "political reasons", it is slime.

Saying that Justin Trudeau is the best leader shows you are absolutely desperate. No one here is going to take you seriously.

 

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:

If you say he had to do these things for "political reasons", it is slime.

Saying that Justin Trudeau is the best leader shows you are absolutely desperate. No one here is going to take you seriously.

I don't think it is "slimy" but either way it is what political parties do including the NDP. They take positions for political reasons.

The "best leader" is a highly subjective topic and depends on the criteria you use.

At this point in time as NR and Sean like to point out Harper appears to be poised to win again if nothing changes therefore by some measures he is the best leader, Trudeau the second best and Mulcair the third best.

I think Trudeau is by far the most likely to win the most seats but if Mulcair were leading the Liberals I think he would win more decisively than Trudeau assuming he adopted Liberal policy.

I don't think it's possible for the NDP to win a plurality of the votes with or without Mulcair leading them so they might as well be true to their roots.

Only six months to the election. If I am wrong and the NDP does win a plurality of the votes or forms a coalition with the Liberals I will definitely eat humble pie.

I wonder who here will eat humble pie if the Liberals form government with a plurality or the NDP falls back to third?

I suspect the overall response will be bitterness and condemnation of voters for voting Liberals.

I wonder if you will be equally condemning of the NDP for not defeating a Liberal minority.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

I don't think it is "slimy" but either way it is what political parties do including the NDP. They take positions for political reasons.

To some extent, but you can tell the moral quality of a party by how often they do this. The NDP can sometimes be found standing up for the right thing, even when it's unpopular. A lot of people thought they'd pay a price for standing up to C-51, but our rights and freedoms weren't negotiable. With the Liberals you have a party that not only will trade your rights and freedoms for their political expediency, but will say to you straight up that this is what they're doing. "Hey guys, sorry we had to destroy your civil liberties, but it was in our political interests, so we're good, right?" This is a party that takes all its positions for political reasons, and doesn't even understand why that would be a bad thing.

Quote:

The "best leader" is a highly subjective topic and depends on the criteria you use.

At this point in time as NR and Sean like to point out Harper appears to be poised to win again if nothing changes therefore by some measures he is the best leader, Trudeau the second best and Mulcair the third best.

Once again, if nothing changes then Harper can only win if Justin refuses to join with the NDP and replace him. Since you think he is "poised to win", then you obviouly expect Justin not to work with the NDP. You expect him to allow Harper to keep governing in that scenario and you are fine with it. Says a lot.

Quote:

I think Trudeau is by far the most likely to win the most seats but if Mulcair were leading the Liberals I think he would win more decisively than Trudeau assuming he adopted Liberal policy.

What Liberal policy? You think Mulcair could only win by adopting Liberal policy even though you don't know what it is yet. Says a lot.

Quote:

I don't think it's possible for the NDP to win a plurality of the votes with or without Mulcair leading them

What a surprise.

Pondering, even among Liberal supporters you are a champion partisan. You are literally the last person left in the country who doesn't think that Justin broke his promise to have free and fair nominations. You defend everything he does and says. You haunt this site day and night sticking up for the most reprehensible behaviour, as long as some Liberal did it.

If you started saying the NDP was going to win, then I would get worried. Telling us over and over that they don't have a chance? That's just you being your charming self. It has less significance than the wind blowing past my window.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Project much, Pondering?

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I really think it is not productive to address others by name in a state of political debate or worse. I have stopped this practice myself.

It always allows the possibility of attacking the person and not the idea, which is an extremely low quality of debate.

 

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

But you are still wrong. That is not how it works. You want to make up your own reality that's okay but it sure isn't factual.

If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party. There is no rule about the biggest party getting the nod. Please stop making up garbage.

And if Harper is the second largest party he could still meet the House and see if the Liberals will support him. If theya re like you and so up-tight about an NDP government who knows?

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Yes, as the sitting government Harper has first crack if he doesn't resign. I don't know of anyone who thinks Harper will try to cling to power if he doesn't win the most seats. If he did the Liberals and NDP would vote him down and whichever won the most seats would be approached by the GG to form government.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2011-37-e.htm?cat...

4.2.2 If there is no clear majority, which party is entitled to be asked to form a government first – the party with the most seats in the House of Commons, or the incumbent party?

If there is no clear majority, the incumbent Prime Minister is given the choice of resigning or meeting the House to see if his or her party has the confidence of the House.18

4.2.3 If there is no clear majority and the government resigns, how is the Prime Minister determined?

Should the incumbent Prime Minister and Cabinet resign in the event there is no clear majority, the Governor General would probably ask the leader of the opposition party most likely to enjoy the confidence of the House to form a government.  The confidence of the House might be evidenced through an informal agreement or a coalition between parties.

In almost every case, the Governor General has chosen as the Prime Minister the leader of the party that has received the largest number of seats in the House of Commons, even if it is not the majority.19

Notice there is not need for the leader to prove he has the confidence of the house.

We have had many minority parliaments in Canada and the GG follows convention. Convention is to ask the party with the most seats if they can form a government. The party does not have to convince the GG to give them a chance. It would be a constitutional crisis if the GG did not allow the party with the most seats to address the house in a speech to the throne. (unless it is because the PM refused to resign and made a deal with another party to stay in power.)

At that point if they chose to the NDP could vote against the Liberals after which the NDP would be expected to make a deal with the Conservatives or there would be another election.

This notion you have that if the Liberals win a plurality of seats they can't govern without the NDP is false.

4.4.2  What types of arrangements are possible for political parties to work together?  What are the differences between them? What precedents exist?

Political scientist Linda Geller-Schwartz has identified five modes of cooperation for minority governments.  They range from a coalition through a formal pact, an informal understanding, ad hoc majorities on each issue, and opposition party restraint while the government acts as though it had a majority.28

At the federal level in Canada, there have been no coalition governments as a result of a minority situation.  Neither have there been formal agreements on cooperation between parties.

There was an informal understanding between the Liberal Party and the NDP between 1972 and 1974.

The looser form of cooperation that Geller-Schwartz refers to as “ad hoc majorities” was evident during the minority governments of Mackenzie King during the 1920s, as well as during parts of the Pearson minority governments of the 1960s.

The mode in which parties cooperate the least sees opposition parties acting with restraint for fear of precipitating an election in which they expect to lose seats, and the government acting as though it had a majority.  This mode was evident during the Diefenbaker governments of the 1950s and 1960s, during the early days of the Pearson governments, and during the Clark government of 1979.

Parties winning a plurality of votes have never had to approach any other party before the speech to the throne.

At the federal level in Canada, there have been no coalition governments as a result of a minority situation.  Neither have there been formal agreements on cooperation between parties.

And yet Canada has had many minority governments. If the Liberals recieve a purality of votes and Harper resigns as per convention the Liberals will have an opportunity to face the house and the Conservatives and NDP will have a chance to vote them out. Then the NDP and the Conservatives can form a coalition and offer to form government or we would have another election.

You are the one trying to construct a fantasy in which the only way the Liberals can form government alone is if they win a majority. That just isn't the case and never has been in Canadian history.

I think Sean from Ottawa did state that if the LPC gets a plurality they will be able to form a minority government. I think arguing here that constitutional convention shows that the LPC will govern as a minority government if they win a plurality of seats is a straw-man argument since everyone here agrees that if the LPC wins the most seats they will form a minority government.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Project much, Pondering?

It is not getting personal to object to posters getting personal with me.  Your interpretation would allow you to make continuous personal attacks without being called out on it.

You think you are entitled to an uneven playing field.

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/what-liberals-are-missing-when-...

 

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Project much, Pondering?

It is not getting personal to object to posters getting personal with me.  Your interpretation would allow you to make continuous personal attacks without being called out on it.

You think you are entitled to an uneven playing field.

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/what-liberals-are-missing-when-...

Not true. I dont recall ever calling any posters  on this board, bullies. I still sayt you are projecting.

adma

Northern PoV wrote:
The demise of the Liberal Party in the UK has led to long term Con dominance there.

Long term Con *and* Lab dominance.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But you are still wrong. That is not how it works. You want to make up your own reality that's okay but it sure isn't factual.

If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party. There is no rule about the biggest party getting the nod. Please stop making up garbage.

And if Harper is the second largest party he could still meet the House and see if the Liberals will support him.

JKR wrote:
I think Sean from Ottawa did state that if the LPC gets a plurality they will be able to form a minority government. I think arguing here that constitutional convention shows that the LPC will govern as a minority government if they win a plurality of seats is a straw-man argument since everyone here agrees that if the LPC wins the most seats they will form a minority government.

Reread his statement. He is saying even if the Liberals win the most seats the GG won't allow the Liberals to face parliament unless the NDP concedes as well as Harper. That is nonsense. Even if both the NDP and Conservatives declared that they wouldn't work with the Liberals the GG would still give Trudeau a chance to form government. The NDP and Conservatives would have to vote against the Liberals in parliament.

He is saying this is still true even if the Liberals win the most seats and the Conservatives are in second so he is clearly referring to the Liberals having a plurality of the vote.

Sean is claiming that even if the Liberals win the most seats the GG will refuse to allow them to attempt to form a government unless they can prove they have the support of either the Conservatives or NDP.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Your obsession with projecting your crap on me is creepy. Are you not capable of discussing politics without getting personal?

Project much, Pondering?

It is not getting personal to object to posters getting personal with me.  Your interpretation would allow you to make continuous personal attacks without being called out on it.

You think you are entitled to an uneven playing field.

http://rabble.ca/babble/rabble-reactions/what-liberals-are-missing-when-...

Not true. I dont recall ever calling any posters  on this board, bullies. I still sayt you are projecting.

I didn't say you did. I call repeated personal attacks by multiple posters bullying. You accuse me of getting personal when I object to personal attacks.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

can you people stop this and take it private?

JKR

Pondering wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Whichever party wins the most seats will be approached to form the government and have an opportunity to deliver a speech to the throne. The other parties will have an opportunity to vote up or down on that speech and on all further legislation.

Such governments generally last a year or two then fall and face judgment in an election.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
But you are still wrong. That is not how it works. You want to make up your own reality that's okay but it sure isn't factual.

If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party. There is no rule about the biggest party getting the nod. Please stop making up garbage.

And if Harper is the second largest party he could still meet the House and see if the Liberals will support him.

JKR wrote:
I think Sean from Ottawa did state that if the LPC gets a plurality they will be able to form a minority government. I think arguing here that constitutional convention shows that the LPC will govern as a minority government if they win a plurality of seats is a straw-man argument since everyone here agrees that if the LPC wins the most seats they will form a minority government.

Reread his statement. He is saying even if the Liberals win the most seats the GG won't allow the Liberals to face parliament unless the NDP concedes as well as Harper. That is nonsense. Even if both the NDP and Conservatives declared that they wouldn't work with the Liberals the GG would still give Trudeau a chance to form government. The NDP and Conservatives would have to vote against the Liberals in parliament.

He is saying this is still true even if the Liberals win the most seats and the Conservatives are in second so he is clearly referring to the Liberals having a plurality of the vote.

Sean is claiming that even if the Liberals win the most seats the GG will refuse to allow them to attempt to form a government unless they can prove they have the support of either the Conservatives or NDP.

I think what he said is true. If the LPC gets a plurality and Harper doesn't concede, the GG would have to consider Harper as being the PM until it is determined that someone else has the confidence of the House of Commons. It should be remembered that Harper is PM until someone else
obtains the confidence of the House. No matter what the election outcome is, Harper can insist on presenting a Throne Speech. If the NDP votes with the CPC's Throne Speech or abstains, the second place or even third place CPC could govern for up to 5 years as long as they maintain the confidence of the House. If the NDP voted against the CPC Throne Speech, then and only then would the GG call on Trudeau to form a government. So if the LPC wins a plurality they will still need support from either the CPC or NDP to form a government. I don't think anyone here thinks that the NDP will be propping up the CPC if the CPC doesn't win a plurality but technically it could happen according to our constitutional conventions. I think everyone here agrees that if the LPC comes in first place, the NDP will side with the LPC over the CPC. In our system it is even possible for a party to win a series of elections by pluralities and never govern as long as they are unable to gain the confidence of the House.

NorthReport

Here is the latest polling showing the Liberals continuing their slow descent South, to the point now the NDP are 4 per cent away from second place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_feder...

Rokossovsky

Northern PoV wrote:

"You do have to worry about your party becoming a complete political irrelevency though."

I worry about Canada (and the world).  Political parties can come and go.  I've worked the phones and the door steps and the ballot scuttineering for both the NDP and Liberals over the years.  Voted Green a few times and even PC once (only vote I regret.)  Our best bet this time is Justin, hence my support. 

The demise of the Liberal Party in the UK has led to long term Con dominance there.  

Reminder: an NDP second place with a Harper win is not a good outcome. (Unless you've enjoyed the last 4 years.)

Justin has underperformed considerably. He is not your best bet. I can see that point of that argument last year after he became leader, but two things are clear, Justin can not beat Harper, and he can not square the circle of the NDP.

He made serious errors, such as vowing support for C-51, when he could easily have objected and abstained in order to define a distinct position. In so doing, he allowed the NDP to sand bag their position around civil liberties that many principled voters simply will not be "pragmatic" about.

It is not good enough to look a polling. You also have to look at performance, and Mulcair and the NDP are performing well. Trudeau and the Liberals are having trouble finding their feet. What we see going on in Alberta is a bellweather.

More importantly, the stakes are such that the Liberals are not even committed to beating Harper. Second place will be victory enough for the Liberals, and that is what they are banking on and why they are hedging their bets, as they are -- winning would be nice, but in the background they are pursuing a two election cycle route back to respectability, and this is entirely logical on their part, given the loss in 2011.

Pondering

JKR wrote:
If the LPC gets a plurality and Harper doesn't concede, the GG would have to consider Harper as being the PM until it is determined that someone else has the confidence of the House of Commons. It should be remembered that Harper is PM until someone else obtains the confidence of the House.No matter what the election outcome is, Harper can insist on presenting a Throne Speech.

This is true but how likely is it that Harper will refuse to resign if he doesn't win a plurality of the seats?

Mackenzie King's Liberals did that in 1925 but only with the support of another party. If Harper loses the election it is beyond belief that either the Liberals or NDP will support Harper for another term. Harper would give his throne speech but it would be rejected by every other party.

JKR wrote:
If the NDP votes with the CPC's Throne Speech or abstains, the second place or even third place CPC could govern for up to 5 years as long as they maintain the confidence of the House.

This is true but I think it would be electoral suicide for either the NDP or the Liberals to support Harper if he doesn't win the most seats. Leaving Harper in place if he loses the election? That makes no sense.

JKR wrote:
If the NDP voted against the CPC Throne Speech, then and only then would the GG call on Trudeau to form a government. So if the LPC wins a plurality they will still need support from either the CPC or NDP to form a government.

Voting against the CPC Throne Speech would not be "supporting the Liberals".

JKR wrote:
I don't think anyone here thinks that the NDP will be propping up the CPC if the CPC doesn't win a plurality but technically it could happen according to our constitutional conventions. I think everyone here agrees that if the LPC comes in first place, the NDP will side with the LPC over the CPC. In our system it is even possible for a party to win a series of elections by pluralities and never govern as long as they are unable to gain the confidence of the House.

That is not what Sean is saying.

Sean is saying that even if Harper concedes and the Liberals have a plurality the GG still will not ask Trudeau to form a government unless the NDP also concedes and/or agrees to support the Liberals BEFORE the throne speech. He is saying Trudeau must convince the GG that he will have the support of either the NDP or the Cons before the speech to the throne.

I say hogwash, if Trudeau wins a plurality of the votes and Harper resigns (which is the norm) the GG will ask Trudeau to form the government regardless of what the NDP does or doesn't do. Trudeau will not have to convince the GG that he has the support of the NDP or the Conservatives.

If Harper refuses to resign and is defeated after the throne speech the GG will turn to the party that won the plurality of the vote giving them a chance to gain the confidence of the house through a throne speech because Canadians would expect the winner of the plurality of votes to get a chance to address the house. Harper would pay for refusing to relinguish power on a technicality after losing the election.

This: If you have less than a majority you have to have a case for confidence. If other parties do not conceed or indicate they woudl not offer confidence the GG will look to other combinations than the first party.

...is not true.

If the GG told the Liberals they couldn't address the house even though they won a plurality unless they made a deal with the CPC or NDP in advance that would cause a constitutional crisis.

Even if Mulcair and Harper both declared they would not support Trudeau he will still be given the opportunity to face the house through a throne speech. The CPC MPs and the NDP MPs would then get a chance to put their money where their mouth is and vote against the Throne Speech preventing Trudeau from forming a government.

Sean imagines that Canadians would punish Trudeau for not agreeing to share power with the NDP. Unless the NDP had a good reason for voting against Trudeau forming government other than "we think he should share power with us" I think Canadians would be outraged and give Trudeau a majority so the other parties could not prevent the Liberals from forming a government again. 

 

 

 

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Sean is saying that even if Harper concedes and the Liberals have a plurality the GG still will not ask Trudeau to form a government unless the NDP also concedes and/or agrees to support the Liberals BEFORE the throne speech. He is saying Trudeau must convince the GG that he will have the support of either the NDP or the Cons before the speech to the throne.

Yes, he would likely ask Trudeau to form a government, and what the means is assuring the GG that he has enough votes to pass a throne speech. There is not point to the exercise if he can not pass the speech.

This does not cause a "constitutional crisis", because if the parties can not resolve their differences, the GG calls for a new election.

NorthReport

Most recent poll:

Cons - 32%

NDP - 24%, now only 4% out of 2nd place

Libs - 28%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_42nd_Canadian_feder...

NorthReport

Very few in the mainstream press give the NDP much chance at winning. dpo they know something the rest don't or do they just hate anything that is unfair, unequal, right-wing politics.

Northern PoV

adma wrote:

Northern PoV wrote:
The demise of the Liberal Party in the UK has led to long term Con dominance there.

Long term Con *and* Lab dominance.

wrong - cons dominate the past century - Labour governments are the exception... hence Tony Blair acting like a CON to win.

bekayne

Rokossovsky wrote:

This does not cause a "constitutional crisis", because if the parties can not resolve their differences, the GG calls for a new election.

But not before the House has met

Pages

Topic locked