Election 2015

[Kirkhill]

that made my head hurt....

Pologies.....

Short form: People don't want change - they just want to chuck out the crooks.

And youngsters aren't people.  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting analysis that shows why Gerald Butts' (Justin Trudeau's political guru) strategy is flawed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/for-liberals-bill-c-51-story-of-calculation-and-miscalculation/article24584901/

For Liberals, Bill C-51 story of calculation and miscalculation

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, May. 25 2015

The Conservatives start their last push to pass their controversial security bill this week, but it’s Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau who is getting squeezed.

His decision to choose the safe, popular position on Bill C-51 has backfired and become a significant weakness.

That’s not because the bill is now massively unpopular. A campaign against it has lowered its once sky-high approval ratings, but not to the floor. Many of those who really care, especially left-leaning voters, were looking for someone to oppose the bill and Mr. Trudeau didn’t. The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair did.

The Liberals took the unusual position that they’d vote for a flawed bill and change it if they win government.

They faced grumblings from their own supporters. The security bill has, according to Liberal MPs and insiders, become a weakness in their rivalry with the NDP, especially in places like downtown Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, where the two parties fight each other.

And it’s not an issue that’s fading away. Prime Minister Stephen Harper pushed it last week, when he went to Montreal, just after the RCMP arrested 10 people at the city’s airport believed to be travelling to join foreign terror groups, to tout new spending for security agencies, as well as Bill C-51.

On Monday, the Senate starts two days of hearings on the bill, before a last vote that will pass it into law. Most members of the Liberal Senate caucus – no longer part of Mr. Trudeau’s caucus – plan to vote against Bill C-51, in what they call an act of principle.

Ouch. For the Liberals, it’s all been a story of political calculation and miscalculation.

The bill, unveiled in January, marks a major change to Canada’s spy powers. It includes a major new role for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to disrupt perceived threats to national security – and the power to get a warrant, in secret; to break the law or Charter of Rights – as long as the threats don’t entail killing, causing bodily harm or sexual assault. It doesn’t include substantial oversight.

But after two homegrown terror attacks in Canada in October, and the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris in January, the bill got a warm reception: An Angus Reid Institute survey in February found 82 per cent favoured it.

The Liberals had already opposed Canada’s decision to join the air strikes against Islamic State, and were feeling politically vulnerable on security issues. They decided to vote for C-51 to play it safe.

The NDP, as it turned out, acted more wisely. At first, they took no clear position. They sent out level-headed foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar to deliver what one New Democrat called a “values statement.” He stressed the need for security, but argued that undermining basic rights undermines security. In the meantime, they would study the bill.

That helped the NDP avoid the appearance of knee-jerk opposition. When Mr. Mulcair eventually stated his opposition, he said that may be an unpopular position, but it was one he had to take.

It turned out to be good politics. NDP supporters were the most opposed, but there was also a constituency that wanted someone to oppose it. As activists campaigned, that constituency grew. Potential Liberal or NDP voters who really cared were mostly against it.

Just how much opposition grew is unclear, but some polls now show opposition substantially outstripping support.

Mr. Harper’s Conservatives still think they’ve got a political winner in the bill. They probably do: People want governments to expand security measures, with no caveats, and the Conservatives have something to appeal to them. The NDP appealed to opponents.

The Liberals, meanwhile, have had a hard time explaining themselves.

As the activists railed against C-51, Mr. Trudeau was cast as the leader who won’t take a stand. David Christopher, a spokesperson for OpenMedia, one of the groups that organized campaigns against the bill, said the Liberal position alienated people, including the party’s own supporters.

“It sort of reeks of political gamesmanship, and Ottawa, and inside baseball,” he said. “That’s just clanging with people out there.”

Mr. Trudeau thought he was taking the safe, popular choice, but it sent a message that he’d ceded the job of opposing the government. And the Liberals were hoisted on their own political calculation.

Splits on the left benefit only the Conservatives ... even Liberal/NDP splits in urban Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver might save a few CPC urban seats and even allow the Tories to "come up the middle" and steal a seat or two from the Liberals or NDP.

    (From my personal perspective, anything that defeats Justin Trudeau is good. While I want the Liberals to succeed, in the mid and long term ~ because I know that the CPC will need replacing sooner
      rather then later ~ I believe that M. Trudeau is unfit to lead a small town, must less a G7 country. The Liberal Party of Canada needs a real political leader, not just a pretty face and nice, but vacuous personality; there are
      good people on the Liberals' front benches: social moderates and fiscal conservatives with real ideas of their own. (Some will say that my (acknowledged) hatred of Pierre Trudeau, who I continue to regard as
      a disaster for Canada, colours my opinion of his son; not so, I think, my low opinion of Justin Trudeau is based on his resume and his words and deeds in public life. He's not ready to be an
      alderman in Moose Jaw, much less prime minister of Canada.) I want the Liberal;s to do well because I cannot believe that Thomas Mulcair's NDP is ready to govern based on it's policies, to date.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

Liberal insider Warren Kinsella gives a timely warning to Team Trudeau, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Winnipeg Sub: negative, attack ads still work; that's why the Conservatives use them; expect more; fight back:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/04/19/negative-ads-that-doomed-dion-ignatieff-could-sink-trudeau

Mr. Kinsella is right, even though the commentariat and punditry don't like them, attack ads are here to stay because they don't backfire and sensible people do heed them, even if they don't care for them.

Look for more and more, even better focused attack ads from both the CPC and the NDP over the next two years.

It's hard to fight back: Prime Minister Harper is, actually, benefiting from his cold, still persona: he looks serious and businesslike, maybe not a "nice guy" or even a "good neighbour," but a serious, solid, manager who might just have the right answers to serious questions about our economic future.

And, in the maybe Conservatives can learn department, we find this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-attack-ad-targets-liberal-leader-despite-poll-showing-ndp-ahead

New Tory attack ad targets Liberal leader despite poll showing NDP ahead

John Ivison | May 25, 2015

The Harper Conservatives are targeting Justin Trudeau in a television attack-ad blitz that launches Monday but ignores Tom Mulcair, despite a poll that suggests the New Democratic Party has overtaken the Tories in popular support.

The attack ad — “Justin Trudeau — just not ready” — is a departure from the vicious broadside that greeted him when he became Liberal leader.

In that ad, the Conservatives used unflattering footage from a cancer charity fundraiser that showed Trudeau taking off his shirt. Many observers suggested this created a backlash because Canadians find Trudeau likable.

The new ad features a workplace setting with an older man, an Asian man, a middle-aged woman and a younger woman looking through a pile of resumés.

The younger woman notes that Trudeau’s application includes his photo, but his experience “says nothing about balancing a budget or making a payroll.”

“But didn’t he say budgets balance themselves?” interjects the older woman.

The spot goes on to highlight issues of security (“he wants to send winter jackets to Syria”), justice (“legalizing marijuana — is that the biggest problem we have to solve?”) and taxation (“he wants to cancel income-splitting for families”).

There is a predictable line from the older woman that being prime minister “is not an entry-level job.”

But there is also a surprising aside from the younger woman that suggests the Tories learned their lesson from the last campaign.

“I’m not saying no forever, but not now,” she says.

It seems the Conservatives understand Canadians like Trudeau — they have watched him grow up, they feel they know him and they don’t like it when he is attacked in malicious fashion.

What’s more, many think he will be prime minister one day. The purpose of the ad is to reinforce the message: one day perhaps, but not this day.

The other ad is a more positive spot on Stephen Harper, showing him as a hard-working, serious leader who has dealt with whatever has been thrown at him as prime minister.

It opens with a shot of Harper sitting at his desk in the evening, top button undone, tie slightly askew.

His voice-over makes the point that the job entails confronting issues that emerge from left field, over footage of the economic crisis, the subsequent stimulus package and jihadists executing Christian prisoners.

“You can’t be bound by ideology,” he says.

All you can do is work hard. “On a good day, you get to feel you have lived up to the job,” he says, as he switches off his office light, over text that reads “Stephen Harper: Proven Leadership.”

Kory Teneycke, the former Sun Media executive turned Conservative Party spokesman, would not reveal the cost of the campaign. “Suffice it to say all Canadians will see (the ads).”

The focus on Trudeau suggests the Conservatives do not see the NDP as their main threat, despite an EKOS poll Friday that put the New Democrats marginally ahead of both the Tories and the Liberals.

“These are the ads we are releasing now, which is not to say there won’t be other ads in the future,” said Teneycke.

He dismissed the risk they could work too well, shifting Liberal support to the NDP. “I don’t think you can ever kill the Liberal party in Canadian politics,” he said.

Teneycke said the Trudeau attack ad would prove more effective than its maligned predecessor.

“This is how Justin Trudeau is viewed by the public. He’s viewed as a likable guy but not a very serious guy. The public perception is that he is inexperienced,” he said. “The only kind of ads that work are the ones that people believe to be true.”

He said the Harper ad is designed to portray a serious, competent, hard-working leader.

“That’s who he is. Justin Trudeau is a different type of leader. He is the type of person who loves the celebrity side of the job — taking selfies at funerals, bouncing babies on his hand and doing political rallies.”

Two previous Liberal leaders — Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff — attributed their subsequent failure, in part, to the power of Conservative negative advertising. Dion was decried as being “not a leader,” while Ignatieff was accused of “just visiting” — a knock on his “foreignness.”

The NDP is also planning to launch its advertising push Monday, with a spot that leans heavily on Mulcair and his humble middle-class upbringing. It promises to bring change to Ottawa, grow the economy, protect the environment and strengthen the middle class.

National Post

It looks like a good ad (I haven't seen it) because it attacks M Trudeau's policies, not his personality, and it compares and contrasts his weakenesses with Prime Minister Harper's strengths.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And David Akin (Sun News) posted the latest Liberal ad, here.

He says, "New from the Liberals. I think it's way too long and way too wordy and requires the viewer to know all the back stories involved here -- but what they hey ..."

Edited to add:

And, still thanks to David Akin:

Here is the CPC advert; and

Here is the new NDP ad; too.

There is, also a new, positive, CPC ad.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, is a rumour which is poor economic policy but might be great politics:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-tories-may-be-considering-nuclear-option-the-libs-and-ndp-cant-match-lowering-the-gst?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Tories may be considering nuclear option the Libs and NDP can’t match — lowering the GST

John Ivison | May 25, 2015

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results, the definition of sanity must be doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting the same result.

To that end, what would be the most sane course for a Conservative government that has just found itself outmanoeuvred by the Liberals when it comes to cutting taxes?

To cut taxes further, of course.

For a party that was elected in 2006, after promising to cut the reviled goods and services tax by two percentage points, what could possibly have more resonance than pledging to trim the GST by another point?

Conservative sources suggest the measure has been discussed internally, though it’s not clear that any decision has been taken.

Joe Oliver, the finance minister, has said a Conservative government would cut more taxes if re-elected. Speaking in Toronto last week, he was asked if federal taxes were now as low as they can go.

“I think we could do more,” he said, pointing out that debt servicing costs will decline as a percentage of expenditures in the coming years.

He also said that the fall in the price of oil had stripped “six or seven billion dollars” from government revenues, forcing the Conservatives to “delay” other measures.

Coincidentally, or perhaps not, a single point cut in the goods and services tax would cost $7-billion.

The Conservatives have already cut the GST by two percentage points from seven to six to five ­ at a cost of $14-billion every year in forgone tax revenue.  The move was widely hailed as being terrible economically but genius politically, firmly establishing the Tories as the party of tax cuts.

Sources suggest this lesson has not be forgotten and there will be “surprises” in the forthcoming Conservative platform.

It would be a nuclear option for the Conservatives ­ a move that the Liberals and New Democrats likely couldn’t afford to match.

The fiscal reality is that the Conservatives can’t really afford to lose another $7-billion in tax revenue either. The recent budget forecast cumulative surpluses of just $13-billion over the next five years, plus a further $7-billion in “rainy day” contingency funds.

But the lure of trimming the GST ­ the least complicated, most easily communicated tax cut ­ is like a siren song. Advocates say the money would be found elsewhere if necessary by squeezing the public service further, tapping the $5-billion in annual “lapsed” spending or, perhaps, by repealing some of the tax credits that are already in place.

In the House of Commons two weeks ago, Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau went blow for blow with two competing visions of Canada’s fiscal future. Trudeau attacked income splitting and the tax free savings account as giveaways to the rich. Harper said his tax policy had “helped every single Canadian family in the country.”

Trudeau responded by saying “benefitting every single family is not what is fair. What is fair is giving help to those who need it most.”

The Liberal child tax benefit attempts to do just that, targeting lower income families with more benefits ­ the base is $6400 per child under six, versus around $5900 for the Conservative plan. The extra benefit is paid for by clawing back payments from higher earners.

A GST cut would fit perfectly with the Conservative narrative. It’s a tried and tested vote winter. When Darrell Dexter’s NDP government in Nova Scotia attempted to take up the space vacated by Ottawa by raising the harmonized sales tax by two points, it was promptly shown the door by voters.

Economists would complain that income tax cuts are more efficient since they encourage saving and future consumption.

The Liberals would argue cutting consumption taxes are unfair, since the rich buy more and would save more.

But voters tend not to believe politicians who make vague promises about making them better off. A GST cut is transparent and would benefit all Canadians, including low income earners and those who don’t pay income tax. Canadians see the impact every day on their bills and they don’t much care that just about the only thing economists agree upon is that cutting the GST is unproductive, inefficient and unfair.

Nobody inside the Conservative Party is confirming another GST cut is part of the re-election plan.

But it would be consistent with Harper’s election strategy over the past decade. And while consistency may be the last refuge of the unimaginative, a la Oscar Wilde, it is equally true that it breeds trust and success.

The economists are right ... we need to allow the national government to have some revenue; that means we must have some taxes; a well designed, universal, consumption tax is better than an income tax or a corporate tax. First, consumption taxes are, somewhat, discretionary: consume less and you pay less. Second, since we all have top consume some things, consumption taxes are, also, progressive because the poor tend to consume cheaper things (which attract less tax) than do the rich. Third, the tax system can be used to refund some of the HST to the really poor.

But, and this is a BIG POLITICAL BUT Canadians hate the GST/HST and cutting it by another point might be very, very popular.

 

[jollyjacktar]

IIRC from the early days of the NWMP in the west, there was what ER calls a consumption tax on pretty well all goods going into the territory from Eastern Canada.  Some of the taxes were so steep that people attempted to circumvent things by basically going on buying trips to Fort Benton Montana in order to get around it.  From what I've read, depending upon what it was you were wanting, you were bled dry by the taxes on it.

If there's to be an income tax, I like the thinking of the Libertarian party with a reasonable flat tax on all.

 

[Kirkhill]

As I understood the situation John A's policies were explicitly designed to bring grain east to support Ontario and Quebec millers and send houses and farm implements west to support Ontario and Quebec manufacturers.

The west as colony.

WRT the GST - agreed - poor economics but brilliant politics.  Once upon a time the only revenue the government had available to it was a consumption tax - the customs revenue from imports and whiskey.

 

[a_majoor]

While this is an ad from the last election, this is the sort of ad the CPC should also be running: who we are and why we are here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk

ANd it is perhaps the most positive ad I have seen in a very long time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just a couple of days later, but based on some addtional polling data, Davoid Akin has updated his Predictinator:

The CPC is unchanged but the NDP have overtaken the Liberals to move into second place: a shift of nearly 15% of the 200+ seats in contention for the two parties.

And here is a further update to David Akin's (Sun News) Predictinator:

    149 days until we vote and it’s anybody’s ball game   
   

    WIth a couple of new polls out in the last week, some new candidates nominated and, voila — here’s the latest seat count from my Predictionator. You can grab an RSS
    feed of all posts tagged with “Predictionator” here.


So, more gains for the NDP at the expense of both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Unfortunately for Thomas Mulcair, it is too early to peak ... both the CPC and the LPC have plenty of time to turn the tables on the NDP, riding by riding.

 

[observor 69]

And then there's this from Chantal Hebert in today's TO Star:

Justin Trudeau’s relevance fading in Quebec: Hébert

Quebec’s longstanding love-hate relationship with Pierre Elliott Trudeau is morphing into collective indifference towards the son.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/25/justin-trudeaus-relevance-fading-in-quebec-hbert.html

 

[a_majoor]

We should remember the collapse of the Liberals began when Mr. Dithers really could not articulate just "why" he wanted to be Prime Minister or what he would do once in office. The process accelerated when Mr. Dion failed to articulate the idea of the "Green Shift", and the collapse became complete once Mr. Ignatieff failed to provide any meaningful direction to the Liberal brand (his Big Thinker's conference simply ended up with "more of the same").

Indeed, the Liberals have been running on empty since post 1993, since they used the same "Red Book" platform in every election since then (how many times can you run on providing universal day care, and fail to deliver each time you actually are in office?). The Young Dauphin and his team have singularly failed to deliver even a hint of a platform or an idea of what sort of direction they wish to take Canada since his ascension as the party leader. Given the pretty disastrous record of the previous three leaders not having ideas, I suspect the current Liberal position in the polls might evaporate pretty quickly once the lack of ideas becomes apparent to the electorate (i.e. once people start paying attention).

 

[jollyjacktar]

If Iggy hadn't been an idiot and forced the election on us so soon after the last one, he might not have had his head on a pike after the voter's took revenge.  I know, I was pissed at being forced into another election.  Same goes for Mr. Prentice, he forced the issue and paid the price.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Margaret Wente, a pretty conservative columnist, offers what I think is a good, common sense analysis of the pre-election situation in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/federal-election-lets-have-a-three-way/article24600414/

Federal election: Let’s have a three-way!

MARGARET WENTE
The Globe and Mail

Last updated Tuesday, May. 26 2015

My political-junkie friends are in a swoon. They have a new love interest – a burly baritone with a beard. Suddenly he’s a contender. “Tom Mulcair may be the next prime minister,” gushed one headline on Sunday.

You can see why the pundits are so ecstatic. The three federal parties are now running neck and neck, at least on paper. The fresh NDP surge introduces a brand-new storyline, full of tantalizing possibilities, strange bedfellows, dangerous liaisons, and kinky coalition combinations. A plucky blonde just stomped all over the ruling-party big shots of Canada’s most macho province and drove them to the brink of oblivion. Anything can happen next. Let your fantasies run wild! But are voters falling for Tom Mulcair as hard as the pundits are? Or are they simply desperate for the least-bad alternative to Stephen Harper?

Right now the answer is, they’re desperate. “I absolutely refuse to vote for Harper again,” declared one person at my Saturday evening gathering of random friends (who are no more unreliable than the polls). He has voted for him twice. But he’s had enough.

The default for soft-core conservatives has always been the Liberals. There’s just one problem – Justin. Even Liberals secretly admit that if their leader’s name were Gaston Tremblant, he’d still be a high-school drama teacher. “He has good people around him,” they insist. It’s not clear who they’re trying to reassure – other people, or themselves.

The polls appear to be full of good news for Mr. Muclair. They show the NDP leading in B.C. and challenging the other two main parties in Ontario. In Quebec the NDP holds a commanding lead. But Ipsos Public Affairs CEO Darrell Bricker cautions that sexy speculation about election outcomes is way too premature. Most of these are robo-polls, which means that their accuracy is dubious and their response rates hover around 1 per cent.

In fact, Mr. Mulcair is largely unknown outside Quebec.

Although he is the leader of the Opposition, the media have treated this fact as a fluke, as if the collapse of the Liberals in the last election were some bizarre mistake that will be erased soon enough. To introduce himself to the public, Mr. Mulcair has launched a cross-country tour that his strategists hope will give him “a richer, more detailed storyline” that people can relate to.

Of course, the storyline you try to give yourself isn’t necessarily the one that sticks. Stephen Harper’s storyline is that he’s “competent, responsible and in charge.” But the storyline that sticks is “arrogant, mean and condescending.” Justin Trudeau’s storyline is “champion of the middle class.” But the one that sticks is “wishy-washy, privileged, and none too smart.”

Mr. Mulcair, too, is aiming at the vast middle class, which, he pointedly reminds us, he actually grew up in. “We worked very hard and nobody gave us anything,” he tells audiences, trying his best to not look as snarly as he does in the House of Commons.

The NDP no longer mentions the “working class,” a quaint label that tends to make middle-class people nervous, and is also not a very apt description for the students, academics, and other white-collar public-sector workers who make up most of the NDP’s constituency. Its old working-class supporters disappeared long ago. So Mr. Mulcair’s task is to persuade enough of the lumpenbourgeoisie that the sky won’t fall if they vote NDP. After all, he can point out, Alberta is still pumping oil (at least for now).

On the face of it, his platform doesn’t sound ridiculously scary – a minimum wage of $15 for federal workers, universal daycare (eventually), tax hikes for fat-cat corporations. Personally, I think those are lousy ideas, and how we’ll pay for it, who knows? But none of that may matter. As the disaffected ex-Harper voter said, “He’s not crazy, and that’s good enough for me.”

I have no idea where this three-way goes, and neither does anybody else. Maybe the burly baritone will flame out. Or maybe he’ll squash the kid and take his votes away. But there’s one thing I can guarantee. Between now and election day, you can expect a lot of heavy breathing.

          “I absolutely refuse to vote for Harper again,” declared one person at my Saturday evening gathering of random friends ... He has voted for him twice. But he’s had enough.

And​

          The default for soft-core conservatives has always been the Liberals. There’s just one problem – Justin. Even Liberals secretly admit that if their leader’s name were Gaston Tremblant, he’d still be a high-school drama teacher.
          “He has good people around him,” they insist. It’s not clear who they’re trying to reassure – other people, or themselves.

That's the dilemma: we dislike Prime Minister Harper, we're tired of him; we want the Liberals to take over for a while, but they need a grown-up leader. That leaves M. Mulcair ...

But there are over four months until the general election: both the Conservatives and the Liberals can slap a lot of lipstick on their respective pigs to make Prime Minister Harper appear a little less hateful and M. Trudeau appear modestly competent. M. Mulcair will be exposed, by the Liberals, as a mean tempered bully, just like Prime Minister Harper; M. Trudeau will be exposed, again, by both the CPC and NDP, as totally unprepared to lead anything much above a high school drama club; and then we'll have to decide ... then being October.

 

[jollyjacktar]

And, therein lies my dilemma.  Unless I have a viable fourth option such as the Libertarian Party running in my riding that appeals, I don't know what to do or where to go as every avenue stinks to one degree or another.

 

[PuckChaser]

And, therein lies my dilemma.  Unless I have a viable fourth option such as the Libertarian Party running in my riding that appeals, I don't know what to do or where to go as every avenue stinks to one degree or another.

You can always vote and spoil your ballot.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is some entertaining speculation about various "hung parliament" scenarios:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/five-ways-a-hung-parliament-could-swing-in-october/article24615741/

Five ways a hung Parliament could swing in October

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 27 2015

Imagine this: A cold grey dawn greets the country on the morning of Oct. 20. After counts that go late into the night, it is clear that the general election of the day before has produced a hung Parliament, with no party able to command a majority of seats in the House of Commons. It turns out that the three-way race among the Conservatives, New Democrats and Liberals that emerged in late May, five months before the election, continued right up to voting day.

So what happens next?

Canadians have plenty of experience with minority governments, including two led by Stephen Harper and one by his predecessor, Paul Martin. But in 2008, the opposition parties tried unsuccessfully to create a coalition in order to unseat the Conservatives. After 10 years of Conservative government, voters opposed to Stephen Harper will be pushing the other parties to do whatever it takes to ensure he is no longer prime minister. And a genuine three-way race? We’ve never had anything like that before.

But who would replace Mr. Harper: Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair? Would there be a conventional minority, or a coalition in which both parties are represented in cabinet? And would the two leaders agree to co-operate, even if the Conservatives win the most seats? The possibilities are endless.

We crafted five election-day scenarios, and consulted political scientists from across Canada on what they felt would be the most likely outcome.

Seats in House of Commons: 338

Number needed for majority: 170

What if the Conservatives have the most seats?

1. STRONG TORY PLURALITY, LIBERALS IN SECOND

In the past, such an outcome would produce a Conservative minority government, which would govern on a bill-by-bill basis with the support of at least one other major party. Since the Second World War, John Diefenbaker, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Joe Clark, Paul Martin and Mr. Harper have all led minority governments.

But as Cristine de Clercy of Western University points out, “the government of the day forms on the floor of the Commons, rather than being ‘selected’ by voters.” Given the deep animosity that many non-Conservative voters feel toward Mr. Harper, Associate Professor de Clercy predicts, “absolutely the Liberals would try to govern with the minority support of the NDP.”

She does not believe the two parties would unite in a coalition government as the U.K.’s Conservatives and Liberals Democrats did in 2010. (The result was a majority Conservative government in the May election, with the Lib Dems virtually eliminated from the House.)

Richard Johnston, of the University of British Columbia, believes that to make a Liberal minority government “look like anything other than a naked power grab they would have to have an agreement” with the NDP on a set of policies and priorities. Bob Rae, then leader of the Ontario NDP, reached such an accord with David Peterson’s second-place Liberals in 1985. The accord provided two years of stable Liberal minority government.

While there might be no formal coalition, Prof. Johnston believes Mr. Mulcair would only grant confidence to a Liberal government led by Mr. Trudeau in exchange for a series of commitments, such as enacting the NDP’s proposed national $15-a-day daycare plan.

Allen Mills of the University of Winnipeg says that, if the Conservatives won the most seats, Mr. Harper would tell Governor-General David Johnston that he intended to form a government and that he would meet the House. If the Liberals and NDP combined to defeat the government on its Speech from the Throne, then “the Governor-General would have an obligation to see if the Liberals and NDP would form a formal or informal coalition,” he says.

The University of Alberta’s Julián Castro-Rea, however, observes that Mr. Harper has a proven record of asserting iron control over his caucus, and of co-opting opposition parties on a vote-by-vote basis. “The Conservatives will never let the Liberals or the NDP form an alternative government, and for that matter these parties would not even try,” Associate Professor Castro-Rea says. Both opposition parties would instead conclude that bringing down a Conservative minority government before it has chance to govern would render them deeply unpopular.

2. STRONG TORY PLURALITY, NDP IN SECOND

Maxwell Cameron at UBC believes that a second-place finish for the NDP would be good news for the Conservatives. “The Liberals would face a dilemma,” he says. “It would be one thing to bring down the government in a motion of non-confidence in order to form a minority government, and another to do it so the NDP could form government or to govern in coalition with the Liberals.”

The words “Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair” could be fatal to Mr. Trudeau’s leadership of the Liberals, and to the party itself. Under the circumstances, Prof. Johnston believes that the Liberals might prefer to prop up the Conservatives for 18 to 24 months, before bringing down the government and forcing an election at a time of the Liberals’ choosing.

For Associate Professor DeClercy, however, “I fully expect the NDP would aim to govern with minority Liberal support.” The imperative among progressives to end Mr. Harper’s reign as prime minister would, she believes, trump all other considerations.

3. WEAK TORY PLURALITY

For Daniel Weinstock of McGill University, three variables determine the outcome of a hung Parliament: How far ahead the leading party is; how close the second and third parties are to each other in terms of seats; and how close the second and third parties are to each other ideologically.

Prof. Weinstock believes that constitutional convention requires the Governor-General to ask any party with a large plurality of seats to form a government. However, “I don’t think that the G-G would be bound in the same way if the three parties are very close to one another, both in numbers of seats and in share of the popular vote,” he maintains.

This is crucial. When Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton tried to oust the Conservatives with the support of the Bloc Québécois in 2008, the proposed coalition was deeply unpopular with voters, who couldn’t believe that Mr. Dion was about to become prime minister even though he’d been thumped in the election. The 1985 Liberal/NDP accord in Ontario, by contrast, was popular in part because the Liberals had come very close to winning more seats than the Conservatives. It appears that, in the minds of voters at least, the closer the second-place party is to the first-place party, the more legitimate it becomes as an alternative government.

If the result is close on Oct. 19, and the opposition parties combined to defeat the Conservative government on its Throne Speech, then “there would be even more of an obligation on the Governor-General to entertain a coalition government” under the leadership of whichever party had the second-highest number of seats, Prof. Mills believes.

Not everyone agrees. “Stephen Harper’s vicious attacks in the fall of 2008 targeting the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition, supported by the Bloc Québécois, gave coalitions a bad press, and a whiff of illegitimacy and violation of democratic standards,” maintains Associate Professor Castro-Rea. “The parties, and arguably the public, are not used to shared governments; they prefer the winner-takes-all approach. So whatever the results of the next federal election are, I would exclude the possibility of a formal coalition of any kind.”

In any case, he believes that the Conservatives would form a government no matter how narrow their plurality, by dividing and conquering the opposition.

What if the Liberals have the most seats?

4. WEAK LIBERAL PLURALITY

“Liberal minority government,” predicts Jennifer Smith, professor emeritus at Dalhousie University in Halifax. If the Liberals win more seats than the Conservatives, they are certain to form a government, if only because, as Prof. Weinstock puts it, “it seems unlikely that the Conservatives and the NDP would be able to collaborate to either unseat the government or to participate in a coalition.”

This is why, for Prof. Weinstock, the ideologically compatability of the opposition parties, or the lack of it, is so important.

Would the Liberals seek to form a coalition with the NDP, in order to ensure four years of stable government? Mr. Trudeau has ruled that out, and in any case, most of those polled agreed that the NDP would be reluctant to enter such a coalition. “Coalitions are stinko in Canada,” says Prof. Smith. There hasn’t been one since the Unionist government of Conservatives and breakaway Liberals under Robert Borden in 1917, she points out, and “the recent coalition attempt in 2008 wound up being subject to ridicule.” Not only did the British Liberal Democrats suffer badly after their coalition with the Conservatives, but Bob Rae’s NDP suffered after its two-year accord with the Liberals, returning as a weakened opposition facing Mr. Peterson’s majority Liberal government.

But, as mentioned in the first scenario, the NDP might require a Liberal government to enact certain NDP priorities in exchange for any vote of confidence.

What if the NDP have the most seats?

5. WEAK NDP PLURALITY

This is a scenario few had considered until very recently. But with Rachel Notley’s win in Alberta, with the NDP trending upward in the polls, and with voters in those polls identifying Mr. Mulcair as a leader they like and trust, an NDP plurality is now increasingly possible.

In which case, what would Justin Trudeau do? He would be under great pressure to support an NDP minority government, or perhaps even to discuss the possibility of coalition, in order to keep the Conservatives from power. But as we have previously observed, if the federal NDP forms a government, the Liberals’ very existence could be at stake.

Prof. Cameron believes that “the most natural outcome would be an NDP minority government. The Liberals would avoid entering into a coalition because minor coalition partners tend not to fare well in subsequent elections. They can position themselves to ensure the NDP governs responsibly and wait for the right moment to go back to the voters.”

Prof. Smith agrees. “The Liberal versus NDP rivalry is too intense at this point to make for promising coalition talks. Plus, the NDP would have the wind at its back. Why squander momentum to form a coalition government, itself not a Canadian tradition?

Associate Professor Castro-Rea speculates that “perhaps the NDP leader would be forced to include one or two Liberals in the Cabinet. If the deal fails, the NDP will try to govern as a minority, but the experiment will not last long.” Voters could be back at the polls within a year.

Prof. Weinstock believes that in such a situation Mr. Harper would certainly step down, and then “the joker is whether he is replaced by a leader more – rather than less – ideologically attuned to the Liberals.” A moderate Conservative leader could co-operate with the Liberals in bringing down an NDP government. But facing a Stephen Harper 2.0, the Liberals would have little choice but to prop up the NDP.

Prof. Mills wonders whether the Liberals might back the Conservatives in any case, rather than see the NDP take power. “Justin might be so pissed off with Tom that he will support Steve!”

As we said, the possibilities are endless.

Graphics by Trish McAlaster/The Globe and Mail

As John Ibbitson says, the possibilities are endless, but my preferences are, in order: 2 (Strong Tory plurality, NDP in second), 5. (Weak NDP Plurality), 1 (Strong Tory Plurality, Liberals in Second), 3 (Weak Tory Plurality) and 4 (Weak Liberal Plurality). My most desired outcome is a CPC slim majority, after which Prime Minister Harper resigns. (I believe Stephen Harper will resign the leadership in any "hung parliament" situation.) My second most desired outcome is any which forces M. Trudeau to resign. I could live with Prime Minister Mulcair for a few months ...

 

[Kirkhill]

It occurs to me that the media are so financially challenged these days that they are reduced to rewriting (plagiarising) old stories.

With some modifications to fit Canadian conditions I would swear that I read Ibbitson's column in both the Telegraph and the Guardian 6 months ago.....And then David Cameron won a majority.

 

[ModlrMike]

I've said this before, but I think people are over looking the possibility of a resurgent Bloc taking seats away from the NDP. We don't see much information leaking out about Quebec federal politics, I'll admit, but I think it's short sighted to write the Bloc's obituary  just yet.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>“I absolutely refuse to vote for Harper again,” declared one person at my Saturday evening gathering of random friends ... He has voted for him twice. But he’s had enough.

People thinking about sending a message need to think also about how strong a message they wish to send, and therefore whether they need to be an active contributor to that message.  Was the approximate collective desire of Alberta voters to have a minority government (of any one of the 3 parties), a Wildrose majority, or an NDP majority?

In 2008, the CPC got 143 seats with 37.65% of the popular vote (5,209,069 votes); in 2011, they got 166 seats with 39.62% (5,832,401 votes).  (Reminder: majority started at 155.)  The shift from minority to majority occurs rather suddenly. 

I am confident the CPC is not going to improve over its 2011 result.  There are plenty of people who have been against Harper and the CPC since day 1, and many more who will act to reduce the CPC vote count this time around.  Not all who merely want to take the CPC down a notch from majority government should vote against the CPC.  Some of the people who would prefer a CPC minority still need to support the CPC if they don't want that mark to be overshot.

 

[George Wallace]

People thinking about sending a message need to think also about how strong a message they wish to send, and therefore whether they need to be an active contributor to that message.  Was the approximate collective desire of Alberta voters to have a minority government (of any one of the 3 parties), a Wildrose majority, or an NDP majority?

People have to really think about what message they are sending.  Many think that they are only sending a message of disapproval to the PC's in this case, not thinking that at the same time they have sent a message of approval to the NDP -- Boils down to a "Half-baked" thought.