Election 2011

[ModlrMike]

Count the BQ as 50+/-.

In my guesstimation: if the Liberal do their best (95+/-) it must coincide with the NDP doing almost their worst (25+/-). Let's say it's 95 Liberals + 25 NDP that's 120 seats, allow 50 for the BQ and that means the Tories are going to have 135+ (there may be a couple of independents) - they will be called upon to form a government. The three opposition parties can defeat that Conservative government and the GG can, probably should if the defeat comes early, ask Prince Michael Ignatieff to form a coalition and try to earn the confidence of the HoC, but the only way a Liberal/NDP coalition can govern is with active BQ support and I repeat: Canadians will not stand for the BQ "calling the tunes," not even from the sidelines.

Yes, the fly in the ointment is the BQ. However, this scenario leaves the GG with an out. He can rule that unless the Bloc is a full and equal member of the coalition, unlike last time, then the Lib/NDP alliance can not form the government, BQ support notwithstanding.

I can't see Canadians accepting the Bloc as a full partner.

 

[a_majoor]

Yep, and you'll never guess where I ended up ...  :nod:

The Black Bear Pub? 

 

[Good2Golf]

I too can't see how the GG could accept a Liberal-NDP coalition that would very likely have notably fewer seats than the Conservatives, without the integration of the BQ within such a coalition.

For as much as I can objectively acknowledge how the BQ's agenda and manner of business makes sense to a large portion of Quebecers, the concept of having an acknowledged separatist party (let's call a spade a spade, here, sovereignty association...whatever, their agenda is to split from what we currently know as Canadian Confederation) being a formative part of the operation of Government???  No way! 

If such a coalition happened, how many cabinet ministers with avowed pledges to actively pursue separation would be in this new government?  Uugh...the thought turns my stomach...

2 more cents.

G2G

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

Yes, the fly in the ointment is the BQ. However, this scenario leaves the GG with an out. He can rule that unless the Bloc is a full and equal member of the coalition, unlike last time, then the Lib/NDP alliance can not form the government, BQ support notwithstanding.

While any decision as to who will form a government in a minority situation is up to the governor general, it is interesting to note that the new GG was grilled by Harper as to what his reaction would be, prior to his appointment.

It is entirely possible that the only outcome of a defeat of a new Conservative minority in the House will be new elections.  Johnston may quite legitimately believe that his duty is to do whatever the PM orders.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Given, just for the sake of argument, the "worst" case, for my Conservative Party (and I remind members that I am a card-carrying conservative and a regular financial supporter), that is:

BQ:      50
Cons: 135
Greens:  1
Inds:      2
Libs:    95
NDP:    25

Then, after the government is defeated only a few weeks after the general election, the only coalition that makes sense is: Conservatives + some, probably about half of the Liberals - enough to give the Con/Lib coalition a solid (175+/-) seat majority and to give Canada four full years of stable, fiscally responsible government. Harper, of course, remains PM; Ignatieff is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs; Flaherty remains in Finance but Scott Brison gets Industry and a Liberal gets Health. I think Ignatieff might go for the deal - it would cost him half his caucus, many of whom would go to the NDP and some of whom would try to form a new party, I think. I also suspect that at least a half dozen, maybe even a dozen Conservatives would bolt and sit as independents until they could form another new, far right, party. If things worked well enough then the Conservative-Liberals would be the new "natural governing" party being, broadly, socially liberal but not overly progressive on social issue, and fiscally conservative; the New Democrats would be the new "natural" opposition being socially progressive and economically irresponsible - the latter is a sure vote getter. the BQ would remain the third party in the HoC and there might be two new parties: one on the right of the government and one on the left, between the government and the NDP.

 

[PuckChaser]

I don't think the Greens will ever get a seat unless they change the voting system to assign seats based on % of the popular vote. Their platform is too far left for even NDP supporters.

 

[Dissident]

Mr Campbell, I hope no such coalition takes place. I, for one, would be supporting the emerging right wing party, but I know that it would have no real chance federally.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Given, just for the sake of argument, the "worst" case, for my Conservative Party (and I remind members that I am a card-carrying conservative and a regular financial supporter), that is:

BQ:      50
Cons: 135
Greens:  1
Inds:      2
Libs:    95
NDP:    25

Then, after the government is defeated only a few weeks after the general election, the only coalition that makes sense is: Conservatives + some, probably about half of the Liberals - enough to give the Con/Lib coalition a solid (175+/-) seat majority and to give Canada four full years of stable, fiscally responsible government. Harper, of course, remains PM; Ignatieff is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs; Flaherty remains in Finance but Scott Brison gets Industry and a Liberal gets Health. I think Ignatieff might go for the deal - it would cost him half his caucus, many of whom would go to the NDP and some of whom would try to form a new party, I think. I also suspect that at least a half dozen, maybe even a dozen Conservatives would bolt and sit as independents until they could form another new, far right, party. If things worked well enough then the Conservative-Liberals would be the new "natural governing" party being, broadly, socially liberal but not overly progressive on social issue, and fiscally conservative; the New Democrats would be the new "natural" opposition being socially progressive and economically irresponsible - the latter is a sure vote getter. the BQ would remain the third party in the HoC and there might be two new parties: one on the right of the government and one on the left, between the government and the NDP.

Edward,

It is funny, but I had been thinking exactly the same thing earlier today.  I can actually see a scenario where the Conservatives go fishing for "Blue Liberals" to make a majority, taking the risk that they can gain more "Centrists", then they would lose on the Right.  While it may seem to be splitting hairs, it would not be a coalition- it would be a semi-hostile takeover.  It may be that enough Liberals are tired enough of sitting on the Opposition side and would like to be back in Government again.  Remember- guys like Scott Brisson were on the Conservative side before. 

To add my observation on the mood in Western Canada on any possible coalition deal that in anyway involves the Bloc in Government- it would be a complete non-starter.  It is my sense that there would be an immediate, sustained emotional and visceral response out of many Western Canadians that may well strain the fabric of Confederation to the breaking point.  Possibly, this is exactly the reaction the Bloc would like to see happen (it is easy to sell separation, when you are separating from wreckage).

 

[Kirkhill]

Is "enjoying the confidence of the House" necessarily the same as "forming a coalition"?

It seems to me that the current PM has enjoyed the confidence of the House with insufficient seats to create a majority for, what is it?, 5 years now?

If the Conservatives come up with a plurality but no majority again then the Liberals could vote no-confidence at any time, as they recently have.  In that case they could, and should, as the Loyal Opposition, be given the opportunity to see if they can secure the confidence of the House.  I am guessing it would be a fair bet that Jack and Gilles would, at least initially, give the Liberals that support even without a coalition per se.  The Liberals would then be in a position to try to manage the House and Government in the same manner that the Conservatives have.

In some respects they would be in a stronger position than the Conservatives, even with fewer seats, because their policies would track more closely with the NDP and the Bloc.

On the other hand, as Edward points out, they do face an internal division that the Conservatives have long since stitched over. 

If their government fell it would likely fall over those internal divisions - assuming that principle plays a role in their planning.

The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.  More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.

The way I see it "les trois amis" have a decent shot at overturning the Conservatives -  assuming that they have no principes and can live with the perceptions they will leave.

No matter if Harper isn't as "bleu" or libertarian as some might wish he seems to be the only alternative to "les rouges" on offer.

 

[Jed]

If the Conservatives come up with a plurality but no majority again then the Liberals could vote no-confidence at any time, as they recently have.  In that case they could, and should, as the Loyal Opposition, be given the opportunity to see if they can secure the confidence of the House.  I am guessing it would be a fair bet that Jack and Gilles would, at least initially, give the Liberals that support even without a coalition per se.  The Liberals would then be in a position to try to manage the House and Government in the same manner that the Conservatives have.

The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.  More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.

The way I see it "les trois amis" have a decent shot at overturning the Conservatives -  assuming that they have no principes and can live with the perceptions they will leave.

No matter if Harper isn't as "bleu" or libertarian as some might wish he seems to be the only alternative to "les rouges" on offer.

I really feel that it is a given that Iffy, Gilles and Jack will overcome their squeamishness and ignore the true voice of the Canadian people. My instincts also tell me the Western backlash would be very extreme.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
The only reliable way to prevent and Iggy, Jack and Gilles menage-a-trois is for the Conservatives to take a useful majority of the seats up for grabs.  In a 308 seat house, demanding 154 votes to pass legislation, it strikes me that 160 seats is the absolute bare minimum definition of a useful majority.  More than that is needed to permit the PM and a couple of Cabinet Ministers to be out of their seats on Government business while not worrying about seeing their government fall to parliamentary razzle dazzle.
...

Actually, due to the well established parliamentary principle of "pairing," people like the PM and ministers and, indeed, ill members can be away from the house for legitimate reasons (government business, illness, etc) and the opposition will "pair" them by having an equal number their members absent themselves from votes on routine day-to-day business. Thus 154 is enough for a bare majority; something between 155 and 160 is workable, allowing for a defection or resignation or even a death, now and again; 160 and above, especially with today's divided house is a solid majority. Thus, a bare majority government can implement much (most) of its legislative programme even when ministers, for example, are away on business.

But, generally, pairing is not used for scheduled votes of confidence or budget matters, which are de facto confidence matters; all members are expected to be in their seats for really important matters.


Edit: additions for clarity

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't think the Greens will ever get a seat unless they change the voting system to assign seats based on % of the popular vote. Their platform is too far left for even NDP supporters.

According to the polling I'm seeing the Greens are running in double digits in several ridings and are running second in two:

1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%

2. Bruce-Grey-Own Sound (ON) - the Greens are at 26%, well behind at Tory at 50%.

Do I really expect a Green to win? No. is it possible? Yes.

 

[dapaterson]

But, generally, pairing is not used for scheduled votes of confidence or budget matters, which are de facto confidence matters; all members are expected to be in their seats for really important matters.

Unless the PM is from High River; in that case, all bets are off...

 

[ModlrMike]

According to the polling I'm seeing the Greens are running in double digits in several ridings and are running second in two:

1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%

That's Elizabeth May running against Gary Lunn. Last time she lost in Nova Scotia. Will she make it a coast to coast affair?

 

[OldSolduer]

Will she make it a coast to coast affair?

I'm trying to think of something witty to say....you said "affair"..... >

 

[SeaKingTacco]

1. Saanich-Gulf Islands (BC) - the Greens are polling at 28.5%, in second place behind a Tory at only 35.2%

While anything in politics is possible, this riding is loaded with retirees from the Prairies. They aren't too stoned to get out and vote on election day.  There is also going to be brutal vote spliting between a pretty well regarded Liberal Candidate and Ms May- who are both chasing the same voter, along with an NDP candidate.  None of them have a prayer getting the 30% who will always vote Conservative.  What the Greens were thinking on picking this one, after West Nova last time, makes me wonder if they get election strategy tips from the Rhino Party.

I'd say this one stays Conservative again.

 

[Infanteer]

It is funny, but I had been thinking exactly the same thing earlier today.  I can actually see a scenario where the Conservatives go fishing for "Blue Liberals" to make a majority, taking the risk that they can gain more "Centrists", then they would lose on the Right.  While it may seem to be splitting hairs, it would not be a coalition- it would be a semi-hostile takeover.  It may be that enough Liberals are tired enough of sitting on the Opposition side and would like to be back in Government again.  Remember- guys like Scott Brisson were on the Conservative side before.

There was an article in a recent MacLeans (Coyne, I believe) that was similar to this.  It basically stated that the centrists of both parties could really give Canada what it needs.

To add my observation on the mood in Western Canada on any possible coalition deal that in anyway involves the Bloc in Government- it would be a complete non-starter.  It is my sense that there would be an immediate, sustained emotional and visceral response out of many Western Canadians that may well strain the fabric of Confederation to the breaking point.  Possibly, this is exactly the reaction the Bloc would like to see happen (it is easy to sell separation, when you are separating from wreckage).

Good point - I think the BQ thrives off of riled up Albertans in "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of way.

 

[Donaill]

I think we will have another minority.  I think people are just tired of politics period, no matter who is in power. As anyone that has lived for awhile can attest, it has been awhile since we have had a "good" party in charge of either province or federal house. I think that there may still be much internal conflict with in the Cons between the Reformists and the Progressive side.

As for myself, I do not see a political party that really reflects my values. It has been some time since we have had one that does. Politics in this country has changed. I now see a fractured nation because regions feel alienated from the process. People feel alienated from the process. Minority govs have worked in our past. They just aren't working with Harper. He wishes to rule as a majority without actually having one. Obviously there is something wrong. He can not form a majority.

Over the years, I have voted Liberal, PC, and NDP.  I honestly do not know who to vote for. I do not believe in voting for someone for the sake of just voting someone out. That leaves few options.

What threw me from Harper was, and still is, the failure to bring in the Parliamentary reforms once promised. Free votes in parliament, and an elected senate.

 

[Infanteer]

Have politics changed?  I'm sure there were scoundrals, self-serving politicians, and idealists in the 1920s, 1950s and 1970s.  Just because we don't have a leader to worship doesn't mean our political system is broken.

Politics likely hasn't changed, but perceptions of the public have - this manifests itself in lower voter turnouts and greater interest in organizations outside of government (NGOs, etc).

 

[Donaill]

Fair enough. I would argue that the decreased time in the House and the seemed inability for the parties to reach compromise are two of the signs of the change in Canadian politics. Youth turn out for voting is at a low. Albeit we have not had an overly charismatic leader for awhile. That does seem to help in politics, no matter where you go within  the democratic countries.

I have to admit that I am a disgruntled voter.