Election 2011

[GR66]

It is pretty well known, I hope, that I am a very partisan Conservative, but I can only hope that PM Harper knows what he's doing when he says “The other parties “are saying that even if we receive a mandate from the people they will defeat us on our budget if they can ... They will get together and form another alternative, of some other kind of government.”” See this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/minority-or-not-harper-sees-no-point-in-compromise/article1992800/

I wish Harper would say: “If Canadians see fit to return me with another minority government then I will reach out – not to the BQ, because I do not believe we can kowtow to separatists and still do what is best for Canada, and not to the NDP, because Mr. Layton has said that he cannot abide me and my party in power, but to Liberals because many of them think like us, many are centrists who want what is best for all Canadians, not just for special interest groups.

What will I offer those Liberals?

• Democratic reform through -
      - More equitable votes for Canadians because we will add 30 seats, from Ontario, Alberta and BC, to the House of Commons,
      - Senate reform,  and
      - Better procedures for our work in the House of Commons, including a question period regime that more closely parallels that used in Westminster;
  
• A sane, sensible budget that controls spending but still allows for at least three more years of 6% increases for health care and enhanced benefits for seniors;
  
• A revised Veterans' Charter that incorporates the Liberals' good idea about education funding for veterans;
  
• Serious consideration of how to implement the good ideas in the Liberal's “learning Passport” - especially “If you get the grades, you get to go.”
  
  [*]We will talk with our Liberal colleagues about how to improve Canadian productivity; how to create more new, better jobs.
  

In short, my fellow Canadians, we will be prepared to work with Liberals, if they want what is best for Canada – and we think many of them do.”

What you are reading is, of course, the triumph of hope over experience.

I also wish that PM Harper would follow this path.  After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans.  By simply putting forth the same budget and telling parliament (and that majority of the Canadian people that DON'T support him) "too bad...take it or leave it" is to my mind a very self-centered partisan move based on the hope that he'd just be giving the Liberals enough rope to hang themselves as a party.

This I believe is exactly the type of attitude that has prevented PM Harper and the Conservative Party from securing the support of the majority of the Canadian voters, despite the absolutely pathetic opposition which they face.  It's a very sad statement on the state of politics and democracy in our great country when we're faced with a choice between two leaders each of which in their own way are willing to snub the democratic will of the electorate in order to retain or gain power. 

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

This I believe is exactly the type of attitude that has prevented PM Harper and the Conservative Party from securing the support of the majority of the Canadian voters, despite the absolutely pathetic opposition which they face.  It's a very sad statement on the state of politics and democracy in our great country when we're faced with a choice between two leaders each of which in their own way are willing to snub the democratic will of the electorate in order to retain or gain power.

Having spent 5 years in a minority Parliament, I suspect that Harper has done nothing but compromise.

 

[GAP]

A Crop poll out of Quebec put the NDP ahead of the Bloc....interesting if this translates to Ontario.....it's gonna smack Iggy hard if them and the NDP split the vote and the Cons come up the middle....

 

[Edward Campbell]

A Crop poll out of Quebec put the NDP ahead of the Bloc....interesting if this translates to Ontario.....it's gonna smack Iggy hard if them and the NDP split the vote and the Cons come up the middle....

And, in this article, in the Globe and Mail, Jane Taber discuss the "halo effect" - which helps Layton and the NDP who are going up, Up, UP while Ignatieff and the Liberals keep going DOWN, Down, down.

Here is the graphic from the article:

 

[GAP]

It seems as if the rush to leave the Liberals is flooding over to the NDP....very little to anyone else......the last week should be getting more interesting....Iggy is getting shrill in his accusations.....

 

[Brad Sallows]

"After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans. "

The latter part is pretty much the case regardless whether a party holds a minority or majority in parliament.  Actual majority vote share ownership is rare, much less dominant majority share.  It can be said of almost every government we've ever had that "the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support" etc, if the vote share is to be expressed in those terms.

There has been a lot of talk since the CPC formed government in 2006 about the legitimacy and fairness of a government which represents "only" 35-38% of Canadians.  No-one ever seems to think it through beyond that facile horsesh!t.  If 35-38% of Canadians experience the satisfaction of having the government (majority) they want 35-38% of the time, that is more fair than 62-65% of Canadians denying that government, ever (and I meet more people "against Harper" than "for anyone else" these days).  We have long stretches of Liberal government with shorter interregnums of Conservative government in this country.  It is "fair" - by the electorate vote share numbers - for the Conservatives to hold 5 to 8 years of government after each 12+ year span of Liberal government - and not just to hold government, but to hold it with a majority.

 

[ModlrMike]

The interesting thing will be if the NDP can continue their momentum, and translate it into seats. Conceivably, they could form the largest opposition party. Mr Layton has specifically articulated his willingness to work with Mr Harper, so perhaps no snap non-confidence motion?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is useful primer on what happens if or when Harper wins another minority:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/21/what-the-will-happen-on-may-3/

What the #!%* will happen on May 3?

Kathryn Blaze Carlson

Apr 21, 2011

In this occasional feature, the National Post tells you everything you need to know about a complicated issue. Today: Kathryn Blaze Carlson examines various post-election scenarios.

Q. The polls suggest Conservative leader Stephen Harper will get a minority. What would happen then?
A. Mr. Harper would get first crack at governing. He would appoint a cabinet and convene Parliament. In all likelihood, he would introduce a Speech from the Throne, which is followed by a vote. That would determine whether he has the confidence of the House of Commons, said Ned Franks, a parliamentary expert at Queen’s University. If he is defeated, Mr. Harper would visit Governor General David Johnston and either resign or ask that Parliament be dissolved for another election. At that point, the GG would approach the leaders of other parties, first and foremost Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, to see if he could glean the confidence of the House — whether via an agreement or an official coalition.

Q. Does the Governor General have to do what the prime minister asks?
A. No. “The Governor General does not have to take the prime minister’s advice,” said Harold Jansen, an associate professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge. Mr. Franks said the GG could exercise his “reserve powers of the Crown, and say, ‘No way, Jose’” to Mr. Harper’s request that Parliament be dissolved for yet another election.

Q. What would it take to convince the Governor General that another party or pair of parties should get a chance to govern?
A. “The Governor General would probably want the assurance that the Liberals would have the confidence of the House for a period of 18 months to two years,” Mr. Franks said. “A non-defeat deal, covering a decent length of time, would likely be enough.” A non-defeat deal could be likened to a non-compete clause in business — the NDP and, if necessary, the Bloc, would agree not to challenge Mr. Ignatieff’s reign for a certain period of time. If Mr. Johnston cannot get that assurance, then he is “perfectly entitled” to grant Mr. Harper’s request for dissolution.

Q: Any guesses on what David Johnston is thinking?
A: He offered the following thoughts in an interview in December, 2010, while discussing the challenges facing countries with minority governments: “I think that most jurisdictions that have a system of first-past-the-post or proportional representation will, from time to time, have coalitions or amalgamation of different parties and that’s the way democracy sorts itself out.” He’s known to be reading dusty volumes, consulting experts and otherwise deepening his knowledge of Canada’s constitutional monarchy, its parliamentary roots and traditions and — of course — the sometimes pivotal role of the Governor General in the transfer of political power.

Q. How long could Mr. Harper theoretically wait before facing Parliament after the election?
A. “I find that question frightening,” Mr. Franks said. He described the 1979 election, when incoming prime minister Joe Clark waited 140 days before facing Parliament after the election. “Clark sat around for the whole summer, thinking about what he was going to do when he got into power,” Mr. Franks recalled. The average number of days between the election and the first sitting of the new Parliament is 77 days, Mr. Franks said, adding that  Jean Chrétien waited far longer — 112 days — in 1997. In theory, he said Mr. Harper has until one year from the last day that Parliament sat before the election was called, which would be late March, 2012. Prof. Jansen said while that is technically true, he pointed out that the government has yet to pass a budget — the Tories were felled before passing their economic document. “I think the government would want to get on that pretty quick,” he said.

Q. What’s the difference between a coalition and an agreement?
A. A coalition involves two or more parties agreeing to jointly form the government, meaning they would all have representation in Cabinet. An agreement is “less intimate and less bonded” than a coalition, in that only one party forms the government and appoints Cabinet ministers, explained Myer Siemiatycki, a politics professor at Ryerson University. That sort of agreement is like an accord, where one or two smaller parties agree to support a larger party for a period of time in exchange for some concessions. In the infamous 2008 scenario, the Liberals and NDP would have formed a coalition with the support of the Bloc Québécois, who attached certain policy demands to their cooperation.

Q. Is there a precedent for either arrangement?
A. In Ontario in 1985, the Conservatives won a minority, so Tory leader Frank Miller got first crack and delivered a Speech from the Throne, Prof. Jansen recalled. His government was defeated, and the Lieutenant-Governor asked Liberal leader David Peterson whether he could form the government. The answer was ‘yes,’ because the Bob Rae-led NDP agreed to support a Liberal minority government for two years. A coalition, meantime, is “very, very rare” in Canada, Prof. Jansen said, adding that the most recent example he recalls was in 1999 in Saskatchewan, when the Liberals and the NDP partnered to lead the province.

Q. Would the Bloc necessarily have to be involved in a Liberal-NDP coalition or agreement?
A. That all depends on numbers. If the Liberals and the NDP combined have more seats than the Conservatives, then Bloc support is unnecessary. If they do not, then the Bloc would be called upon to offer its support for a Liberal-led minority or coalition government. “There’s really no way that the Bloc would end up part of a coalition, though,” Prof. Jansen said.

Q. Is there some particular threshold of seats that would legitimize an agreement between the Liberal and the NDP in the eyes of Canadians?
A. There is no quota per se. However, “it would complicate things if the party that is going to form the government has a really low threshold of seats,” Prof. Siemiatycki said. While a coalition is constitutionally legitimate, Prof. Jansen said political legitimacy is tougher to judge. “I think if the gap between the Conservatives and the Liberals is big enough, then it could be tricky,” he said. He added that a Liberal-led government would be less controversial if the party only needed NDP support, and did not have to lean on the separatist party.

Q. How might Canadians react to a Liberal-led minority, backed by the NDP and, if necessary, the Bloc?
A. Prof. Siemiatycki said Canadians will be divided on this. “Some Canadians will think, ‘How can you have a prime minister who won, say, less than a third of the seats?’” he said. “Others might say, ‘This is our fourth consecutive election where we wound up with a minority government, and maybe we need to experiment with some different modes of governing.’” Prof. Siemiatycki said it is important to remember that Mr. Harper may have won the most seats in the last election, but the Liberals and the NDP together gleaned more votes than the Tories.

Q. Does all this talk about coalitions and agreements detract from Mr. Harper’s argument that it would be illegitimate, because Canadians know exactly what they might be voting for on Election Day?
A. Prof. Jansen thinks so, at least to some degree. “Part of the problem in 2008 was that the Liberals and the NDP did not talk at all about a coalition,” he said. “They spent five weeks beating up on each other, and then three weeks later wanted to sit around a Cabinet table together.” This time around, Mr. Ignatieff has said he is open to the idea that he could get less seats than Mr. Harper and still form a government. “I don’t think anyone could claim they didn’t know it was a possibility,” he said. However, he said a coalition government would likely be ill-received by Canadians, as Mr. Ignatieff has repeatedly denied that he would enter such an arrangement.

Q. If Mr. Harper loses the confidence of the House and is forced to visit the Governor General, which door would he use to access Rideau Hall?
A. The prime minister is most likely to enter the historic building via the unassuming Ambassador’s Door — a small, white, wooden door atop a bannistered stair case at the side of the building. “When he has private meetings here with the Governor General, that’s the door he uses,” said Rideau Hall spokesperson Marie-Ève Létourneau. “However, for the dissolution of Parliament, he chose to enter through the front facade. That’s his choice.” She said the Ambassador’s Door is primarily reserved for the prime minister, although it was recently used by others because the front facade was under construction. Ms. Létourneau said the Ambassador’s Door — which is at the end of a treed footpath between the administration door and the Princess Anne entrance — is kept locked, and that someone is sent to greet the prime minister upon his announced arrival.

National Post, with files from Postmedia News
kcarlson@nationalpost.com

A few observations:

1. The 'time' issue is interesting but not, as Prof. Franks suggests, especially “frightening.” Clearly, based on precedent, something in excess of, say, 120 days or four full months, is quite acceptable. Thus, given a 2 May election parliament need not be recalled until, say, just after Labour Day. Ignatieff et al could defeat the government on the Throne Speech – but it would make them look very opportunistic. If he survives the Throne Speech debate and delays the budget until, say, early Nov then Harper probably will be on solid ground to demand another general election – just before Christmas (we have not had a Dec general election since, at least, World War II). Harper might, even, decide to bring down the budget in Feb 2012, as has become customary, and then there is no doubt that a defeat on the budget would require another general election. Thus, opportunistic or not, Duceppe, Ignatieff and Layton must conspire to defeat Harper on the Throne Speech or they will not be able to give Ignatieff the keys to 24 Sussex Drive.

2. If the polls are accurate and if they hold then the BQ's formal involvement will be necessary for Ignatieff to form a government. That is a big problem for the Liberals.

3. Prof. Siemiatycki is quite correct: there is no formal “threshold” of seats that the “biggest loser” needs to have but public opinion is unlikely to favour a party with, say, only ¼ of the seats in the house (and just over ¼ of the popular vote) governing the country – with the active support of the separatists.

 

[Edward Campbell]

"After all...we are talking about a situation where he would be forming a MINORITY government which of course means that the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support his original plans. "

The latter part is pretty much the case regardless whether a party holds a minority or majority in parliament.  Actual majority vote share ownership is rare, much less dominant majority share.  It can be said of almost every government we've ever had that "the MAJORITY of Canadians do NOT support" etc, if the vote share is to be expressed in those terms.

There has been a lot of talk since the CPC formed government in 2006 about the legitimacy and fairness of a government which represents "only" 35-38% of Canadians.  No-one ever seems to think it through beyond that facile horsesh!t.  If 35-38% of Canadians experience the satisfaction of having the government (majority) they want 35-38% of the time, that is more fair than 62-65% of Canadians denying that government, ever (and I meet more people "against Harper" than "for anyone else" these days).  We have long stretches of Liberal government with shorter interregnums of Conservative government in this country.  It is "fair" - by the electorate vote share numbers - for the Conservatives to hold 5 to 8 years of government after each 12+ year span of Liberal government - and not just to hold government, but to hold it with a majority.

I've mentioned this before, but the last time a MAJORITY of Canadians voted for one party in a national general election was in 1958 when John Diefenbaker secured 53.8% of the popular vote for his Tories. No one, not Mike Pearson, not Trudeau, not Mulroney and not Chrétien, either, ever got within spitting distance of a majority. Low 40s and high 30s have been the normal percentages of the popular vote for Conservative and Liberal governments for 40 years. This is a silly argument from the Harper haters.

 

[PuckChaser]

The Green's seem to have lost .4%, which is a pretty big sum considering they only had 3.8% to start with.

 

[a_majoor]

I remember the Rally for Canada events that protested the last crack at the coalition. I wonder what sort of response the coalition will get this time. I remember walking past the rally in London as it was ending and being very surprised to see people I knew who were non political at the rally and being very put out by the whole coalition thing.

I wonder if the disgust at the notion of a "coalition of the losers" and more specifically the notion that the BQ is going to hold the ROC to ransom in order to support the coalition won't ignite a TEA party type movement in Canada as well to loudly and openly protest the coalition and work for its downfall.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I remember the Rally for Canada events that protested the last crack at the coalition. I wonder what sort of response the coalition will get this time. I remember walking past the rally in London as it was ending and being very surprised to see people I knew who were non political at the rally and being very put out by the whole coalition thing.

I wonder if the disgust at the notion of a "coalition of the losers" and more specifically the notion that the BQ is going to hold the ROC to ransom in order to support the coalition won't ignite a TEA party type movement in Canada as well to loudly and openly protest the coalition and work for its downfall.

No. Look at the current voter preferences:

BQ (90% of whom are unreconstructed statists of various sorts): 8.6%
Cons (only 50% of whom might be Tea Party supporters): 38.7%
Greens (only a tiny handful of whom might be Tea Party sympathizers): 5.8%
Libs (85% of whom can be counted on as being anti-Tea Party): 28%
NDP (only a tiny handful of whom might be Tea Party sympathizers): 17.9%

Thus:

1. Potentially pro-Tea Party ≤25% - that probably errs on the side of Tea Party optimism; and

2. Likely anti-Tea Party ≥75%.

Now, I do not suggest that more than 25% of Americans are pro-Tea Party but my guess is that only 25% are (maybe just were) really anti-Tea Party.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not many changes in seats, in this projection, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from ThreeHundredEight.com:

http://www.threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

CANADIAN POLITICS AND ELECTORAL PROJECTIONS

April 21, 2011 Projection - Conservative Minority Government

THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 2011
NDP gains in Quebec, but no new seats – yet

The Twitterverse was abuzz late last night, as rumours began being spread that CROP and EKOS would be releasing two polls showing the New Democrats ahead of the Bloc Québécois in Quebec. The gossip didn't disappoint, as CROP put the NDP at 36% and EKOS at 31% in the province, with the Bloc standing at 31% and 24% respectively. Talk of an NDP sweep of Quebec and of Jack Layton as Canada's next leader of the Official Opposition abounded. Even the most staunchest critics of polls came out to marvel at what CROP and EKOS had to say, seemingly forgetting their prior warnings and cautionary notes.

Of course, these two polls are remarkable. And whether they reflect the eventual May 2 result or not, they will have a huge influence on the campaign in Quebec and in the rest of the country. There is nothing particularly problematic with either of these polls and they do speak to a completely identifiable trend in Quebec - the NDP is gaining and the Bloc is losing. So there is no reason to dismiss them, but there is some reason to hold off on the congratulatory toasts. I'll address these two polls, and the others added to this morning's projection, later this afternoon.

Undoubtedly, this projection update will be anti-climactic for some. But that should not be a surprise. The other polls added to the projection this morning (from Nanos and Innovative) did not effect any great change in the rest of the country, and Innovative's poll in particular (pegging the NDP at 16% in Quebec) put a damper on New Democratic gains, not to mention this week's Harris-Decima poll (15%).

But even without the Innovative poll, I would not have had the NDP at 30% in Quebec. The projection model has always been skeptical when it comes to new trends. Until this level of support becomes a consensus opinion, and not one that lasts for a few days, you can expect this kind of approach to big swings like the ones we've seen in the CROP and EKOS polls today. And I should emphasise that it is not me being skeptical, but the model itself. It is hard-wired to react this way, and the ephemeral Liberal lead in Ontario is a good example of why it is the proper way to go.

Nevertheless, there have been some changes at the national level. The Conservatives and Liberals are each down 0.1 point to 38.6% and 27.9%, respectively, while the NDP is up 0.3 points to 18.2%. That is a big jump in national support, and actually puts them even with their 2008 performance. I suspect they will surpass it in tomorrow's update.

Regionally there have been very few changes.

Except in Quebec, obviously. There the NDP has gained 0.8 points and now stands at 19.3%. Long-time readers of the site will know that a 0.8-point gain in a day is huge. And only a few weeks ago people would have laughed at the NDP being pegged even this high.

While the NDP gains, the other parties fall. The Bloc Québécois has dropped again and is now at 35% support, while the Liberals are down 0.2 points to 20.4% and the Conservatives are down 0.1 point to 20.1%. With a few more polls confirming the NDP as the top federalist option, the projection model will begin to reflect that as well.

However, despite this gain for the NDP there have been no seat changes in Quebec, or anywhere else. Getting over the bar of two seats in Quebec will require more gains for the party, but once they get there we should start seeing a few seats dropping here and there with every point gained.

Perhaps things will look up, in seats, for Layton and the NDP, perhaps not.

The coming weekend will, I suspect see a little less and a little less intense campaigning in honour of Easter and Passover. Next week the politicians must compete for public attention with the Royal Wedding. Who would you rather watch:

  or 

If these sorts of number hold on 2 May 11 then Ignatieff will need guaranteed, formal BQ support if he wants to become prime minister – a dangerous proposition from a public perception point of view.

 

[GAP]

Nik on the Numbers

The Tories continue to lead in regions west of the Ottawa River but NDP support has moved up in the wake of Layton's positive leadership scores.

Although support for the Conservatives remains at 39.0%, the Liberals have trended down for the second night in succession and their support now stands at 26.7% nationally followed by the New Democrats at 22.1%, the BQ at 7.5% and the Green Party at 3.4%.

Atlantic Canada, factoring the margin of error for the regional sample, is shaping up into a three way tie as the NDP has trended up over the past seven days. The Tories are at 36.3% followed by the Liberals at 33.1%, and the NDP at 28.3%.

What is interesting in the NDP pick-up in support over the past few days is the spillover effect of positive impressions of Jack Layton in Quebec in areas of Canada where the NDP has done well in the past either federally or provincially - Atlantic Canada (think of the NDP government in Nova Scotia), the Prairies and British Columbia.

In our long term tracking the greater the focus on the New Democrats, the greater the likelihood for their support to increase. However, in the past, the challenge has been sustaining those increases in support over time.

The BQ continues to lead in the province of Quebec but their numbers continue to fall. Current tracking shows the BQ at 32.0% with the NDP at 23.4%, the Liberals at 20.8% and the Tories at 17.5%. At 32% it would be the worst ever showing for the BQ in a federal election. Their previous worst showing was in 1997 where they won 37.9% of the vote in Quebec.

The Conservatives lead in Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia but there has been movement in the support of both the Liberals and New Democrats in BC. The Tories stand at 43.5% in BC, while the New Democrats are at 29.6%, the Liberals at 22.7% and the Greens at 4.0%

Canadians continue to identify party platform at their key vote driver 53.2% while party leader registered at the top driver among 20.7% of Canadians.

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust, vision and competence scores of the leaders.

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20.


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 19th (n=1,200; committed voters only n=1,018). *Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,200).

Canada (n=1,015 committed voters)
Conservative 39.0% (-0.1)
Liberal 26.7% (-1.7)
NDP 22.1% (+2.3)
Bloc Quebecois 7.5% (-0.2)
Green 3.4% (-0.5)

*Undecided 15.4% (+0.2)

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200)

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 19th (n=1,200).

Party Policies 53.2% (+1.0)
Party Leader 20.7% (-1.0)
Local Candidate 13.6% (-0.9)
Traditionally Vote for Party 7.8% (-0.2)
Unsure 4.8% (+1.1)


Feel free to forward this e-mail. Any use of the poll should identify the source as the latest "CTV News/Globe/Nanos Poll".

 

[GR66]

I've mentioned this before, but the last time a MAJORITY of Canadians voted for one party in a national general election was in 1958 when John Diefenbaker secured 53.8% of the popular vote for his Tories. No one, not Mike Pearson, not Trudeau, not Mulroney and not Chrétien, either, ever got within spitting distance of a majority. Low 40s and high 30s have been the normal percentages of the popular vote for Conservative and Liberal governments for 40 years. This is a silly argument from the Harper haters.

In our first past the post system you're absolutely right that it's exceedingly rare for even a large majority government to get the majority of the popular vote.  What we're facing now however is a situation where not only would whomever forms the government not have the majority of the popular vote they also wouldn't have the majority of the representation in the House of Commons.  That fact, to my mind, should at least be enough for the prospective PM to accept the fact that their mandate from the electorate is not an expression of unconditional support for their policies.

That being said, the losing parties must be even more concious that THEIR policies have received even LESS support than the winning party and must greatly temper their opposition to the government in deference to the will of the electorate.  Ignatieff I think has opened the door a slight crack in this area with his latest comments that he would not automatically defeat any Conservative budget so long as there is some sign of the Conservatives showing some bending as well in light of their (presumed at this point) failure to secure a majority in the House. 

I'm certainly no constitutional expert but I'm wondering if a Conservative budget were to be defeated the GG could look at the relative numbers in the House (along with the fact that any Liberal government would require the tacit support of the seperatists) and pull the leaders together in private and tell them to come up with some kind of compromise solution that would avoid a legal (but I think highly questionable) situation of a Liberal minority government beholden to seperatists for support, or putting the Canadian public through another unwanted election which may not resolve the existing deadlock.  If any one of the parties then refused to help resolve the situation the GG could disolve the House and call an election...and publicly state that the reason was that "such and such a Party was unwilling to compromise in order to find a solution to the deadlock".  This could pose enough damage to the offending party that the outcome of a new election might actually produce a different result.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

If any one of the parties then refused to help resolve the situation the GG could disolve the House and call an election...and publicly state that the reason was that "such and such a Party was unwilling to compromise in order to find a solution to the deadlock".  This could pose enough damage to the offending party that the outcome of a new election might actually produce a different result.

The GG doesn't play politics.  I don't see it as likely that he would find it necessary to explain himself.

 

[dapaterson]

The Liberals are essentailly flatlining; the real story is the Bloc' loss of 1/ of their support, most of which, at first glace, appears to be headed for the NDP.

This is a signficant change, and it will be itneresting to see over the next 2-3 electoral cycles whether this is a one-time abberation or the beginning of a long term shift in Quebec.

 

[GR66]

The GG doesn't play politics.  I don't see it as likely that he would find it necessary to explain himself.

I don't personally see any problem with the GG explaining his decisions.  Our government is of and for the people and the electorate has as much right to know why decisions are being made as the constitutional experts. 

The "playing politics" part is of course much tricker and a potentially dangerous first step down a slippery slope.  You're correct that having him come out and blame a specific leader or party would be an overtly political act and should not be taken.  I take back that suggestion.  (but wouldn't it be nice just once for someone to call a spade a spade and make the political leaders face the music for their actions?)

However I don't see any problem with him simply addressing the nation and explaining the choices that were before him (approaching the Liberals to form a government with the tacit support of the seperatists OR calling for a new election), what steps he took to try and resolve the issue (approaching the party leaders directly and seeing if an alternative solution or compromise could be reached to avoid either of those undesireable alternatives), and letting the public know that the party leaders were unable to come up with a solution thereby giving the GG no choice but to call for a new election. 

 

[GAP]

Interesting scenario

How Ignatieff fell into a Tory trap
ADAM RADWANSKI  Globe and Mail Wednesday, Apr. 20, 2011
Article Link

He won’t rule out making a play for the Prime Minister’s Office, even if he doesn’t win the most seats on May 2. But he won’t fully embrace that possibility, won’t make the case for why it might be in the country’s best interests.

And so, a week and a half before election day, Michael Ignatieff is smack in the middle of no man’s land.

It’s the last place the Liberal Leader should want to be, because it’s exactly where Stephen Harper wants him.

The Conservative Leader’s pitch for a majority government revolves around the premise that giving him only another minority would open the door to an unwieldy coalition of Liberals alongside socialists and separatists. In the early stages of this spring’s campaign, that argument seemed to be falling flat. But now Mr. Ignatieff has breathed life into it.

In recent days, he has been drawn into discussions about what it would look like if the opposition parties quickly combined to bring down another Conservative minority. It went far enough to allow a pair of Harper-friendly premiers – Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall and Alberta’s Ed Stelmach – to attack him for it on Wednesday. But Mr. Ignatieff has not himself put any positive spin on what opposition co-operation would look like, leaving the fear-mongering to stand.

If the two men were being graded by civics teachers, Mr. Ignatieff would indeed be winning. His explanation of how another Conservative minority would work – the need for Mr. Harper to gain the confidence of Parliament, the possibility that a failure to do so will lead the Governor-General to turn to Mr. Ignatieff instead – is grounded in parliamentary conventions. Mr. Harper’s insistence that only the party with the most seats can govern, and anyone else attempting to do so is usurping the will of the people, is an open defiance of those conventions.

But the leaders are not being judged by civics teachers; they’re being judged by an electorate looking for a reasonably concise explanation of what its options are. Mr. Harper is providing that, however misleadingly. Mr. Ignatieff is not.

When the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge pressed him for answers on post-election scenarios, during a nationally televised interview on Tuesday, Mr. Ignatieff spent five minutes talking in circles. None of what he said was factually incorrect. But he came off exasperated that he had to keep explaining his openness to work with other parties, and evasive on the matter of what that co-operation might lead to.

On Wednesday, Mr. Ignatieff seemed a little less defensive. In one of those breaks from script that Mr. Harper would never attempt, he spoke of how another Conservative minority would mean “a new world after May 2” – one in which the Prime Minister could no longer say “it’s my way or the highway.” Later in the day, he insisted that he would not lead a government with cabinet ministers from other parties. But there remains much confusion about what kind of government the country would be left with, if not a Conservative one.

Mr. Harper, naturally, is only too happy to provide the answer. The same day, he painted a nightmare scenario of “higher spending and tax hikes,” of “renewed fighting over referendums, constitutions and national unity,” of economic decline and job losses.

In the absence of any other picture being painted by Mr. Ignatieff, that’s the only version of an opposition-backed Liberal government that Canadians are hearing about. And that’s a problem, because Mr. Ignatieff is increasingly leaving the impression that Mr. Harper won’t remain long in power unless we give the Conservative Leader a majority.

Mr. Harper has been setting this trap ever since Stéphane Dion’s ill-fated attempt to take power 2 1/2 years ago. Now, Mr. Ignatieff has wandered straight into it. He has 11 days to find his way out.
end

 

[Edward Campbell]

I don't personally see any problem with the GG explaining his decisions.  Our government is of and for the people and the electorate has as much right to know why decisions are being made as the constitutional experts. 
...

Until and unless we act, through our parliament, to clarify the crown power's and methods - as the Brits have done - then I think the GG is best advised to say nothing to anyone. (S)he has access to much expert constitutional and political advice - but, ultimately, (s)he must make a decision (drop the writs for another general election or ask the second party to try to form a government) based on a fairly simple set of rules and precedents. The most important "rule" is that the country must have a government - even one that hasn't met parliament, yet, or is embroiled in a general election.

But he can send some signals: for example, assuming we end up with Cons=150+/-, Libs+NDP=115+/- and the Cons are defeated, early on, then I would expect to "see" (publicly, on TV) Duceppe, Layton and Ignatieff enter Rideau Hall, one after the other - Ignatieff twice or more often - so that when Ignatieff announces that he is now the PM we will all know that Duceppe agreed to put him there.

But: I suspect -

1. Harper wins, with 150+/- seats, etc;

2. Harper meets parliament in early Jun and delivers an innocuous Throne Speech - which passes, thanks to a few of BQ, Liberal and NDP strategic absences - because no one, including a lot of Liberals, really wants Prince Michael to be PM;

3. Harper adjourns the house for the traditional summer recess; the House returns in mid-Sep 11;

4. Ignatieff does not do well at the Jun 11 Liberal convention and resigns;

5. Flaherty presents a financial statement - not a budget - and Supplementary estimates, which pass;

6. The various 'scandals' are all resolved by the new Speaker without any more contempt motions before the House adjourns again, in late Nov for a winter break that lasts until mid Jan 12;

7. Flaherty brings down a budget in Feb 12 - by late Feb the government is defeated on the budget, if it is going to be defeated at all in 2012, and we have another general election because the window for asking the opposition to form a government is long past; or

8. The Cons' budget passes - strategic absences again - and they continue to govern until 2013/14 while several parties get new leaders.