Latest polling thread Feb. 25th, 2015

416 posts / 0 new
Last post
Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
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.

Harper has governed as long as he has because the Liberals have either outright supported him or in many cases simply not shown up to vote on key confidence matters. Harper also not only tried to form a coalition to replace the Paul Martin government in 2004, but has demonstrated very authoriarian tendancies, even outright contempt for normal democratic principles, and in the event of a loss would not go down quietly. He would still try and hang on to power.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
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.

Harper has governed as long as he has because the Liberals have either outright supported him or in many cases simply not shown up to vote on key confidence matters. Harper also not only tried to form a coalition to replace the Paul Martin government in 2004, but has demonstrated very authoriarian tendancies, even outright contempt for normal democratic principles, and in the event of a loss would not go down quietly. He would still try and hang on to power.

The Liberals voted in favor of Harper legislation because another election risked giving Harper a majority which he did eventually obtain and because the Liberal party was in disarray.

Neither Liberal nor NDP supporters would tolerate leaving Harper in power if he loses the election. That is completely different from than passing the legislation of a minority government for a year or two which is the norm in Canada.

 

* "win the election" in layman Canadian terms meaning either winning a majority of seats or a plurality of seats.

 

 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
Neither Liberal nor NDP supporters would tolerate leaving Harper in power if he loses the election. That is completely different from than passing the legislation of a minority government for a year or two which is the norm in Canada.

1) A majority of Liberal voters wanted them to form a coalition with the NDP in 2008 to defeat Harper, and the Liberal Party went back on that. What members and supporters want they do not always get. Their past behaviour does not instill confidence that they can be counted on to remove Harper. Indeed, after an election their coffers would be drained so they would have good reason to fear another election.

2) In order for a minority government to survive, at key points, one of the opposition parties have to say, "we have confidence in your government," and that confidence is either obtained outright or with one of the parties abstaining. You can be sure that if Harper survives despite "losing" the election, whichever party who supported him would certainly wear it.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals voted in favor of Harper legislation because another election risked giving Harper a majority which he did eventually obtain and because the Liberal party was in disarray

This is nonsense. Pondering you don't get to provide what you think is the truth as fact and call it that. Provide information that specifically speaks to this from the LPC leadership and proves your point. This is nonsensical. Prove it!

nicky

The Liberals are slipping further behind in Quebec:

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

Significantly the NDP dominate the Francophone vote which will determine the vast majority of seats. The Liberals are now below the Bloc, having fallen 2 % since March, 8% since February and 13% since August.

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Neither Liberal nor NDP supporters would tolerate leaving Harper in power if he loses the election. That is completely different from than passing the legislation of a minority government for a year or two which is the norm in Canada.

1) A majority of Liberal voters wanted them to form a coalition with the NDP in 2008 to defeat Harper, and the Liberal Party went back on that. What members and supporters want they do not always get. Their past behaviour does not instill confidence that they can be counted on to remove Harper. Indeed, after an election their coffers would be drained so they would have good reason to fear another election.

2) In order for a minority government to survive, at key points, one of the opposition parties have to say, "we have confidence in your government," and that confidence is either obtained outright or with one of the parties abstaining. You can be sure that if Harper survives despite "losing" the election, whichever party who supported him would certainly wear it.

I cannot believe you are arguing that if Harper loses the election the Liberals would still let him continue governing because they kept him in power when he won elections.

Uh yeah, if the Liberals won the election but let Harper continue governing they would lose all support and "wear it" in the next election.

It's impossible to take you seriously when you suggest that is a plausible scenario.

If the Liberals win a plurality of votes they will face the house for a confidence motion and the NDP will get their chance to vote against them. They better have a better reason than "the Liberals refused to share power with us" because they would wear that in the next election.

Regardless of what the other parties say or don't say the GG would never stand in the way of the winner addressing the house through the throne speech because it is the members of parliament, not the party leaders, who determine whether or not to support the proposed PM.

We do not have a PR system. We have a FPTP system. Minority governments in Canada can enter into coalitions and accords but they don't have to.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

The Liberals voted in favor of Harper legislation because another election risked giving Harper a majority which he did eventually obtain and because the Liberal party was in disarray

This is nonsense. Pondering you don't get to provide what you think is the truth as fact and call it that. Provide information that specifically speaks to this from the LPC leadership and proves your point. This is nonsensical. Prove it!

Oh please, a few of you are constantly saying what the Liberals think, what their motivations are and what Liberals would or wouldn't do.

It's common knowledge and common sense that the Liberals didn't want to face another election immediately after losing one and that after each loss they were worse off. They were burning through leaders and going broke so in no condition to compete.

NorthReport

CROP

Francophone voters

NPD - 34%

BQ - 22%

Lib - 21%

Con - 18%

 

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

Rokossovsky

bekayne wrote:

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

Yes, because in this scenario the throne speech from the incumbent government has already been defeated.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Neither Liberal nor NDP supporters would tolerate leaving Harper in power if he loses the election. That is completely different from than passing the legislation of a minority government for a year or two which is the norm in Canada.

1) A majority of Liberal voters wanted them to form a coalition with the NDP in 2008 to defeat Harper, and the Liberal Party went back on that. What members and supporters want they do not always get. Their past behaviour does not instill confidence that they can be counted on to remove Harper. Indeed, after an election their coffers would be drained so they would have good reason to fear another election.

2) In order for a minority government to survive, at key points, one of the opposition parties have to say, "we have confidence in your government," and that confidence is either obtained outright or with one of the parties abstaining. You can be sure that if Harper survives despite "losing" the election, whichever party who supported him would certainly wear it.

I cannot believe you are arguing that if Harper loses the election the Liberals would still let him continue governing because they kept him in power when he won elections.

Uh yeah, if the Liberals won the election but let Harper continue governing they would lose all support and "wear it" in the next election.

It's impossible to take you seriously when you suggest that is a plausible scenario.

Kind of like "opposing" C-51 and voting for it. That kind of nonsense? Hard to believe? Yes. True. Yes.

jerrym

The most shocking thing about the latest Forum poll, even taken the Notley phenomenum into account, is that the federal NDP poll has its highest percentage support (30%) in Alberta (see Region section).

 

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/Federal%20Horserace%20News%20Release%20(2015%2004%2022)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

 

Rokossovsky

Link doesn't work.

Why is that shocking? All these factors are working in tandem. The NDPs new national stature since 2011, and being the "official opposition", and their performance in parliament, as well as the high toxicity value of the Trudeau name in Alberta are likely major factors contributing to the fact that "left" opposition is coalescing around the NDP under Notely as opposed to the Liberals in Alberta.

That burst from ANDP is energizing the brand overall. These relationships are simbiotic.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

Kind of like "opposing" C-51 and voting for it. That kind of nonsense? Hard to believe? Yes. True. Yes.

No, it's nothing like that. Opposition parties support legislation they don't like all the time. It isn't unbelieveable at all.

For the winning party in an election to willingly allow another party to keep or take power is unheard of.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

bekayne wrote:

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

Yes, because in this scenario the throne speech from the incumbent government has already been defeated.

Harper refusing to resign without the support of another party is unprecedented. It would make no sense as he would know that he would be immediately defeated by parliament the reason being he didn't win the election. There would be no need for an immediate election because the GG would ask the winner of the election to form government be that the NDP or the Liberals.

If the party with a plurality were defeated then we would be going back to an election.

If that party that wins the election (in the eyes of Canadians) is denied an opportunity to form government I think Canadians would return them with a majority.

jerrym

Rokossovsky wrote:

Link doesn't work.

Why is that shocking? 

It's shocking from a historical perspective (unless your memory goes back to the United Farmers of Alberta who " initiated several reforms, including improving medical care, labour rights and fairer taxes." in the 1920s and 1930s); (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Farmers_of_Alberta) to the One Big Union which began in Calgary in 1919 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Union_(Canada)); and to

Quote:

Communist Party member Henry Bartholomew, a well-known Communist speaker and lecturer in the city, ran in a 1924 Edmonton by-election under the banner of the Canadian Labour Party, which at the time took in both non-Communists and Communist Party members. He came in a strong third with 29 percent of the vote, and the transferable balloting system in effect at the time gave him more votes in the first round of ballot transfers, so that he was almost in second place, but, held out of the first two spots, he was dropped off and his ballots re-distributed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_–_Alberta

So maybe it's not so shocking, especially in Redmonton. 

Here's another attempt at the poll link.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/Federal%20Horserace%20News%20Release%20(2015%2004%2022)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

 

adma

Northern PoV wrote:

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.

Yeah, and one can counter-argue that the Tories to some degree "acted like Labour" to win post-WWII (i.e. the "wet tendency" that Thatcher ultimately sought to marginalize).  In this context, explain how things would've been different had the Liberals remained viable.

NorthReport

CROP poll: Liberals lose momentum in Quebec, NDP still on top.

With the federal election less than six months away, the NDP are once again pulling away from the Liberals in Quebec.

http://montrealgazette.com/storyline/crop-poll-liberals-lose-momentum-in...

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

bekayne wrote:

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

Yes, because in this scenario the throne speech from the incumbent government has already been defeated.

Harper refusing to resign without the support of another party is unprecedented. It would make no sense as he would know that he would be immediately defeated by parliament the reason being he didn't win the election. There would be no need for an immediate election because the GG would ask the winner of the election to form government be that the NDP or the Liberals.

If the party with a plurality were defeated then we would be going back to an election.

If that party that wins the election (in the eyes of Canadians) is denied an opportunity to form government I think Canadians would return them with a majority.

It has nothing to do with what is right in terms of the "eyes of Canadians". Governments have been ruling this country for years with less than 40% of the electoral vote. It has to do with the number of seats in parliament.

In fact, in 1963, Diefenbaker did precisely this, refusing to resign and delaying the Throne Speech, even though the Liberals had a clear plurality, but were 5 seats short of majority. Both the Liberals and the Tories vied with each other to try and get enough votes from the Social Credit to pass a Throne Speech.

In the end Pearson was able to get 6 Social Credit MPs from Quebec to agree to support a Liberal government, certified by a letter of intent given to the Governor General, and then, and only then did Diefenbaker resign.

In a situation of a close plurality, if you don't think that Harper isn't wiley enough to stall the Throne Speech and try and peel off some right wing Liberals from the Liberal caucus and get them to cross the floor, in order to avoid the "disaster" of an Liberal/NDP coalition, you have another thing coming to you.

Certainly, the Liberal Party was split the last time coalition with the NDP was proposed, and I can easily see Harper cherry picking a few right wing Liberals from their bench in order to make up the difference, with plum cabinet postings in the offing: ask David Emerson.

The main reason that the Liberals canned the coalition in 2009, was to avoid an open split in the party, and its dissolution as a functioning organization.

Your problem is that you think that the "Liberal Party" exists as a cohesive ideological entity, other than a convenient vehicle for the personal political ambitions of the people who run for office.

bekayne

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact, in 1963, Diefenbaker did precisely this, refusing to resign and delaying the Throne Speech, even though the Liberals had a clear plurality, but were 5 seats short of majority. Both the Liberals and the Tories vied with each other to try and get enough votes from the Social Credit to pass a Throne Speech.

In the end Pearson was able to get 6 Social Credit MPs from Quebec to agree to support a Liberal government, certified by a letter of intent given to the Governor General, and then, and only then did Diefenbaker resign.

Diefenbaker's public comment was that he was waiting for the service vote. Also he needed both Social Credit and the NDP to pass a vote in the house, and Pearson was sworn in 14 days after the election (the historical norm).

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19630413&id=ks5RAAAAIBAJ...

bekayne

Rokossovsky wrote:

I can easily see Harper cherry picking a few right wing Liberals from their bench in order to make up the difference, with plum cabinet postings in the offing: ask David Emerson. 

I think Jim Prentice and Danielle Smith have helped make that scenario a lot less likely

Rokossovsky

bekayne wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

I can easily see Harper cherry picking a few right wing Liberals from their bench in order to make up the difference, with plum cabinet postings in the offing: ask David Emerson. 

I think Jim Prentice and Danielle Smith have helped make that scenario a lot less likely

Nice try.

The distinction is that the PC/WR merger happened in the run up to an election, looking at securing a new mandate. Securing a few right wing Liberals to keep Harper in power immediatly after an election for another four years, is an entirely different prospect.

Again, you are thinking that the Liberals are a party unified by some kind of shared set of ideological principles, other that pure personal ambition served by a fundraising and advertizing vehicle.

bekayne

 

jerrym wrote:

Here's another attempt at the poll link.

http://poll.forumresearch.com/data/Federal%20Horserace%20News%20Release%20(2015%2004%2022)%20Forum%20Research.pdf

 

Download the pdf file from this link:

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/274/minority-government-seen/

 

bekayne

double post

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

The media is an entertainment network. There are some people who are trying to get the news out.

You have a million choices to get the news. You can't expect the corporate media to serve anything other than its own interest.

And that interest is the bogus phoney fraudulent staged contest between the Liberals and the Conservatives, which has been going on for 148 years.

As this is a democracy, we can end this, and say no to these corporate slavemasters who assume that the work day is 12 hours. Richard Branson didn't make all his billions sitting in his offshore tax haven (of which he claims residency on his LinkedIn) without some hired help.

Rokossovsky

Anyone who thinks that Harper can't fish out 10 or 15 Liberal MPs out of the Liberal caucus in order to fill out a Conservative majority and pass a Throne Speech, is delusional.

Anything but surrender the country to the socialist hordes.

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:
It has nothing to do with what is right in terms of the "eyes of Canadians". Governments have been ruling this country for years with less than 40% of the electoral vote. It has to do with the number of seats in parliament.

Yes, in the eyes of Canadians whomever wins the most seats gets a shot at being the PM. They don't have to have a majority.

BC has no legal power to stop the Northern Gateway from going through and yet it is stalled and unlikely to happen. People are not as respectful of authority as they used to be.

Parties do eventually have to face elections again so they do consider the will of the people on issues that could impact their re-election or lack thereof.

Convention matters in this regard as Canadians will expect the person they percieve to be the winner of the election to become Prime Minister. They will consider the election stolen if that doesn't happen.

Rokossovsky wrote:
In fact, in 1963, Diefenbaker did precisely this, refusing to resign and delaying the Throne Speech, even though the Liberals had a clear plurality, but were 5 seats short of majority. Both the Liberals and the Tories vied with each other to try and get enough votes from the Social Credit to pass a Throne Speech.

I dare the NDP to negotiate with the Conservatives to keep Harper in power if he loses the election. Go ahead, make that threat. We will see how much the opinion of Canadians matters.

Rokossovsky wrote:

In the end Pearson was able to get 6 Social Credit MPs from Quebec to agree to support a Liberal government, certified by a letter of intent given to the Governor General, and then, and only then did Diefenbaker resign.

I can't find any record of that letter of intent but by your own admission the incumbant Tories might have had the support of another party to stay in power which would have given them a plurality if not a majority. Which party do you foresee supporting Harper if he loses the election?

Rokossovsky wrote:

In a situation of a close plurality, if you don't think that Harper isn't wiley enough to stall the Throne Speech and try and peel off some right wing Liberals from the Liberal caucus and get them to cross the floor, in order to avoid the "disaster" of an Liberal/NDP coalition, you have another thing coming to you.

He can certainly try but there is no incentive for Liberals to switch right-wing or otherwise because Harper is obviously on the decline. It would make more sense to stay with the rising winning party.

In any case if enough Liberals cross the floor to give Harper a plurality or majority then he gets to present a throne speech and the Liberals and NDP vote up or down at that time. In my opinion they would take Harper down and the Liberal reps would trot back over to the Liberals.

Rokossovsky wrote:
Certainly, the Liberal Party was split the last time coalition with the NDP was proposed, and I can easily see Harper cherry picking a few right wing Liberals from their bench in order to make up the difference, with plum cabinet postings in the offing: ask David Emerson.

David Emerson crossed the floor to the winning party not to the losing party at a time when the Liberals were in disarray and the Conservatives were rising. It's true some Liberals could cross the floor, some independents could also join up with Harper giving him the plurality but I doubt he could reach majority territory so would still be defeated when he faced parliament. Not much incentive for anyone to cross the floor in his direction unless it would give him a majority. If he does reach a majority then he wins. With or without the NDP the Liberals could do nothing.

The last time the Liberals flirted with a coalition Dion had slipped up the middle stealing the election from Rae and Ignatieff one of whom was expected to be leader. The Liberals then lost the election. The coalition plan was an excuse for the executive to rebel and install one of their chosen leaders. Supporters then deserted the Liberals in droves.

Rokossovsky wrote:
Your problem is that you think that the "Liberal Party" exists as a cohesive ideological entity, other than a convenient vehicle for the personal political ambitions of the people who run for office.

You should stick to expressing what you think. The Liberal party is not ideological. They are a moderate pragmatic party. Like any other party their representatives run for a variety of reasons some less altruistic than others.

You are stretching to come up with unlikely scenarios in which the Liberals win a plurality but are unable to govern unless they make a deal with the NDP.

If enough Liberals cross the floor to give Harper a majority then the Liberals are helpless with or without the NDP.

If Liberals cross giving Harper a plurality then the Liberals and the NDP will defeat him in parliament. The crossing liberals would know this so they wouldn't cross. This is an unrealistic scenario.

If Trudeau wins a plurality of votes Harper will resign because unlike Diefenbaker Harper would know there was no chance in hell the other parties would support him.

 

 

 

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

I dare the NDP to negotiate with the Conservatives to keep Harper in power if he loses the election. Go ahead, make that threat. We will see how much the opinion of Canadians matters.

 

You don't get a dare unless you tell a truth. Liberals are not widely known by Canadians for telling truths. No truth, no dare.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

OK, seeing this ISN'T a thread where LPC partisans shrilly accuse the NDP of everything under the Sun, how about this?

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/24/01-4864316-sondage-crop-la-presse-trudeau-en-baisse-au-quebec.php 

Not only ae the NDP leading, but Le Dauphin continutes to tumble. I say hooray!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

 

I dare the NDP to negotiate with the Conservatives to keep Harper in power if he loses the election. Go ahead, make that threat. We will see how much the opinion of Canadians matters.

 

Pondering, what are you talking about?

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal party is not ideological.

That is what I said. Hence, in order to stop the "socialist" hordes, a great number of them could easily be lured into the Conservative camp, in order to prevent the disaster of an NDP/Liberal coalition. It was the prospect of this eventuality that capsized the last attempted coalition. They, being "pragmatic" would take the "moderate" position of siding with the "steady hand" of Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

JKR

Pondering wrote:

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.

 

My understanding of this statement is that when a party leader concedes to another party leader, by default they are endorsing that person to be PM. So if on election night Harper concedes and congratulates Trudeau who has just won a plurality, the GG would automatically invite Trudeau to be PM.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

CROP poll: Liberals lose momentum in Quebec, NDP still on top.

With the federal election less than six months away, the NDP are once again pulling away from the Liberals in Quebec.

http://montrealgazette.com/storyline/crop-poll-liberals-lose-momentum-in...

NDP: 31%

LPC: 29%

CPC: 19%

BQ: 18%

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

I dare the NDP to negotiate with the Conservatives to keep Harper in power if he loses the election. Go ahead, make that threat. We will see how much the opinion of Canadians matters.

 

Pondering, what are you talking about?

In the event that the Liberals won a plurality but Harper refused to step down he would need the support of another party to stay in power. I don't believe either the Liberals or the NDP would support Harper under those circumstances. The NDP would not be in a position to force the Liberals into a coalition. They could threaten to support Harper but it would never happen.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering, you're delirious. The NDP is never going to work with Harper; what's really going on here is you're tring to convince us that this is a possibility just like you're hoping the Canadian public would buy the same baseless hypothesizing. There is no set of circumstances under which the NDP would prop up Harper. As Duncan Cameron has already explained, your party has, and continues to do so. Stop worrying about the NDP and start worrying about your own party. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're an "independent". Sure, and I'm "Santy Clause"!

NorthReport

CROP

Francophone voters

Party / Aug '14 / Feb '15 / 1 Mth Ago / Today / Change

Lib  / 34% / 29% / 23% / 21% / Down 13%

 

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

 

Sean in Ottawa

I have been busy the last couple days. But wow Pondering did you ever misrepresent what I said!

I'll deal with this horses manure whan I have more time.

NorthReport

CROP

Francophone voters

NPD - 34%

BQ - 22%

Libs - 21%

Cons - 18%

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have been busy the last couple days. But wow Pondering did you ever misrepresent what I said!

I'll deal with this horses manure whan I have more time.

Well it wasn't deliberate so I will be happy to read your clarification.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

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.

What Pondering appears to be arguing is that in a minority situation where the Liberals get to present a throne speech, that Justin will not consult the other leaders to find out what he would need to include in the throne speech in order for it to pass parliament. If Justin did this it would be the height of stupidity/arrogance.

And don't give us any more crap about how no party leader ever consults the others when crafting their throne speech in a minority situation.

Oh, and the price the NDP will pay for voting down a Liberal throne speech can vary wildly, depending on the number of seats the respective parties have. Don't assume the NDP will have to vote for any Liberal throne speech in order to avoid paying for defeating it. With the right configuration of seats, the Liberals could be the ones to pay the price if their throne speech fails to pass and Trudeau did not consult the other party leaders beforehand.

Centrist

Even with a smaller sample size, the methodology, and this far out from e-day, the Quebec City numbers are somewhat disconcerting - 42% for the Cons with a spread of 18% over the NDP.

Tells me that the Cons "Blue Arrow" strategy of going from their current 5 seats to 15 from the Lac St. Jean area in the north, through Quebec City, across the St. Lawrence River into the Beauce region and beyond might well fly.

If that is the case, potentially could make the difference between a Con minority and a Con majority if my poli gut tells me right. Ugh.

 

Centrist

Even with a smaller sample size, the methodology, and this far out from e-day, the Quebec City numbers are somewhat disconcerting - 42% for the Cons with a spread of 18% over the NDP.

Tells me that the Cons "Blue Arrow" strategy of going from their current 5 seats to 15 from the Lac St. Jean area in the north, through Quebec City, across the St. Lawrence River into the Beauce region and beyond might well fly.

If that is the case, potentially could make the difference between a Con minority and a Con majority if my poli gut tells me right. Ugh.

 

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:
What Pondering appears to be arguing is that in a minority situation where the Liberals get to present a throne speech, that Justin will not consult the other leaders to find out what he would need to include in the throne speech in order for it to pass parliament. If Justin did this it would be the height of stupidity/arrogance.

And don't give us any more crap about how no party leader ever consults the others when crafting their throne speech in a minority situation.

I don't know if no PM ever did but Harper did not consult with the Liberals or the NDP when crafting his throne speeches when he had a minority government.

If Trudeau wins a plurality he will do the same and so would Mulcair.

Are you claiming that if Mulcair won a plurality he would consult with Trudeau or Harper when crafting his throne speech?

We have a FPTP system not PR. What is legal, what is possible, and what is usual are not the same thing.  The GG doesn't just follow rules they also follow convention and the spirit of their role which is non-interventionist. They will wield their power but only when absolutely necessary and with great care not to overstep.

I begin with the premise that Harper would not refuse to resign because he would know that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives would support his throne speech. (Conservatives would have more incentive to cross over to the Liberals not the other way around); also with the assumption that the Conservatives and the NDP would not create a governing coalition.

I know my numbers don't work because other parties would also win seats but for the sake of argument:

If Trudeau wins 104 seats, Harper wins 102 and the NDP wins 102 the GG will meet with Trudeau and ask him if he can form a government. Trudeau will state that he is ready to form the government. He does not need to provide proof.  The GG may suggest he try to form a coalition with either the Conservatives or the NDP but he will not order it even if the Conservatives and the NDP are promising to defeat the government. Nor will the GG say to all the parties that two of the three must make a deal. The GG can't say he picks nobody.

In my opinion, if Harper loses the election he will resign and the GG will do what he usually does which is offer the party with the most seats an opportunity to form government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Young

Pondering wrote:

 

If Trudeau wins 104 seats, Harper wins 102 and the NDP wins 102 the GG will meet with Trudeau and ask him if he can form a government.

 

Since there are 338 seats up for grabs in 2015, who wins the other 30, Pondering?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I have been busy the last couple days. But wow Pondering did you ever misrepresent what I said!

I'll deal with this horses manure whan I have more time.

Well it wasn't deliberate so I will be happy to read your clarification.

Ha....Ha....

Pondering

David Young wrote:

Pondering wrote:

 

If Trudeau wins 104 seats, Harper wins 102 and the NDP wins 102 the GG will meet with Trudeau and ask him if he can form a government.

 

Since there are 338 seats up for grabs in 2015, who wins the other 30, Pondering?

It doesn't matter. I could have used numbers that add up to 100. The point was to give an example in which the seat distribution between the three parties was close.

If you reread the post with that in mind my point will hopefully be easier to grasp.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Both Nanos & Ipsos are now showing the NDP with 25% support in their latest polls, and the EKOS poll released Friday, now has the NDP only 4% behind the Liberals. Another couple of points and the NDP could become statistically tied with the Liberals.

This is obviously great news for the NDP's campaign to win the next election, and leave the Liberals in the dust.

NorthReport

Another, terrible, very bad news day for the Trudeau Liberals.

Trudeau's Liberals losing ground in Quebec to second "Orange Wave": poll

The federal election is now less than six months away, and it appears the "Orange Wave" that washed over Quebec in 2011 is making a second splash.

A new CROP poll for La Presse shows the NDP under Thomas Mulcair once again pulling away from the Liberals and Conservatives, leading the pack at 31 per cent support.

Justin Trudeau's Liberals are close behind at 29 per cent, down from a neck-and-neck tie with the New Democrats at 32 per cent last October, according to a Abacus Data survey released Oct. 20.

Support for the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper trails at 19 per cent, while the struggling Bloc Quebecois hold 18 per cent support among Quebecers.

The poll was conducted between 1,000 respondents from April 15 to April 20.


http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news/2015/04/25/trudeaus-liberals-losing-ground...

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:
If Trudeau wins a plurality he will do the same and so would Mulcair.
Pondering, you may think Trudeau would not consult the other leaders before presenting a throne speech, but the way you've worded this is to present it as a known fact, which it isn't. Perhaps this is one of the reasons people here find you so irritating.

Pondering wrote:
Are you claiming that if Mulcair won a plurality he would consult with Trudeau or Harper when crafting his throne speech?

I do think there's a good chance that Mulcair would consult before presenting a throne speech, as I think there's a chance that Trudeau would as well.

To not consult is to have no idea of what your throne speech might need to contain in order to pass. It's equivalent to if the allies had invaded France in 1944 without bothering to check the disposition of enemy defenses.

 

bekayne

NorthReport wrote:

Another, terrible, very bad news day for the Trudeau Liberals.

Trudeau's Liberals losing ground in Quebec to second "Orange Wave": poll

The federal election is now less than six months away, and it appears the "Orange Wave" that washed over Quebec in 2011 is making a second splash.

A new CROP poll for La Presse shows the NDP under Thomas Mulcair once again pulling away from the Liberals and Conservatives, leading the pack at 31 per cent support.

Justin Trudeau's Liberals are close behind at 29 per cent, down from a neck-and-neck tie with the New Democrats at 32 per cent last October, according to a Abacus Data survey released Oct. 20.

Support for the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper trails at 19 per cent, while the struggling Bloc Quebecois hold 18 per cent support among Quebecers.

The poll was conducted between 1,000 respondents from April 15 to April 20.


http://www.cjad.com/cjad-news/2015/04/25/trudeaus-liberals-losing-ground...

Here's the "Orange Surge" as documented by CROP

06/14 35%

08/14 32%

09/14 36%

10/14 30%

11/14 32%

12/14 30%

01/15 30%

03/15 30%

04/15 31%

http://www.threehundredeight.com/search/label/CROP

Pages

Topic locked