Canadian federal election - 2015

[adma]

To paraphrase Mackenzie King: "Coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition".

[King of Kensington]

So two relatively young men, Baird and MacKay, have called it quits, and Harper's most high profile minster is the 75-year-old Joe Oliver.  That doesn't exactly help counter the image that this is a tired government.

[Boston Bread]

Ipsos poll apparently has
31 (-4 from last poll)
31 (-2)
30 (+5)
And the NDP at 41% in QC, and 25% for LPC, 20% Bloc, only 11% CPC!

http://globalnews.ca/news/2029234/ndps-national-surge-due-to-popularity-in-quebec-not-post-alberta-honeymoon-poll/

[Hatman 🍁]

Ipsos = junk pollster

[Holmes]

This isn't looking good for the Liberals.

[DL]

Ipsos = junk pollster

You can say that but their numbers are remarkably consistent with what we have seen from Ekos and Forum and CrOP

[Lief 🗽]

Ipsos = junk pollster

You can say that but their numbers are remarkably consistent with what we have seen from Ekos and Forum and CrOP

Plenty of junk pollsters just plagiarize the numbers of actual pollsters.

[Hatman 🍁]

Ipsos = junk pollster

You can say that but their numbers are remarkably consistent with what we have seen from Ekos and Forum and CrOP

This is true, but they're still a junk pollster

Actually, the Liberal numbers seem high in this poll.

[Boston Bread]

Abacus weighs in
31 (-5 from last poll)
28 (nc)
28 (+4)

http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Abacus-Release-Headline-Political-Data_May2015.pdf

Interestingly NDP is taking evenly from LPC and CPC voters. Further 8% of 2011 CPC voters support LPC, 9% NDP, so another even split. It looks like whole LPC->CPC voter to prevent an NDP win phenomenon is overblown. In that case maybe we should start talking less about blue liberals and more about orange tories.

[Boston Bread]

Interesting graphic:



The NDP actually has the largest base (16%) and is the most inoffensive to voters (more would consider them than any other party). It's just that the NDP are doing poorly with voters who are still deciding between them and LPC/CPC. It suggests that the NDP both has the highest floor and highest ceiling, and that the NDP are merely closer to their current floor. Would be fantastic if true.

[DC Al Fine]

Central Nova Liberal candidate resigns

Tory organizer Fred DeLorey seeks the Central Nova nomination

[Hatman 🍁]

I'm surprised the Conservative floor is just 15%. You'd think that they'd be pretty close to their floor by now.

[Linus Van Pelt]

If I understand that graphic correctly - given the phrase "federal political parties" and the percentages adding to 100 - Bloc-NDP swingers would be included in "NDP only", since the NDP is the only one of the federal parties asked that they would consider voting for.

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Is there a possibility of the Liberals and NDP to form a left of center coalition against Harper?

[Boston Bread]

If I understand that graphic correctly - given the phrase "federal political parties" and the percentages adding to 100 - Bloc-NDP swingers would be included in "NDP only", since the NDP is the only one of the federal parties asked that they would consider voting for.

Most of the Bloc probably selected "none". Considering that Green+Bloc+Other is about 9% in that poll it's the most likely possibility.

[136or142]

NDP and Liberals both take the same position on implementing the recommendations of the Aboriginal Truth and Reconciliation Commission: all of the recommendations should be implemented.

Can anybody tell me a single policy difference between mainstream New Democrats and 'Red' Liberals?

[Hatman 🍁]

Is there a possibility of the Liberals and NDP to form a left of center coalition against Harper?

No; Please see almost every other page of this thread for discussion on this matter

[DC Al Fine]

Can anybody tell me a single policy difference between mainstream New Democrats and 'Red' Liberals?

I can think of a pretty major one between the parties' Quebec supporters

Seriously though, I think you bringing up "mainstream New Democrats" and "Red Liberals" demonstrates the issues with the "Libs & NDP should merge to stop Harper" crowd. The Tories & Alliance had closer cultures, and their voters were generally on the same side in provincial campaigns, and even they lost about 8% of their previous combined vote in 2004. Something similar would happen for the left. Between blue liberals, socialists, and Quebec nationalists, someone will be majorly pissed off at a merger.

[Boston Bread]

I could see an accord like Ontario 1985 - defeat the Conservatives on a confidence vote, then let the second place party govern as a minority without a formal coalition, although the third party would get some concessions.

[jaichind]

I could see an accord like Ontario 1985 - defeat the Conservatives on a confidence vote, then let the second place party govern as a minority without a formal coalition, although the third party would get some concessions.

Is there a tradition in Canada of letting the largest party rule, even as a minority rather than a "coalition of losers" especially when there is no pre-election alliance between the second and third place parties?

[Hatman 🍁]

I could see an accord like Ontario 1985 - defeat the Conservatives on a confidence vote, then let the second place party govern as a minority without a formal coalition, although the third party would get some concessions.

Is there a tradition in Canada of letting the largest party rule, even as a minority rather than a "coalition of losers" especially when there is no pre-election alliance between the second and third place parties?

Almost always it's the largest party. When the opposition gets together, it's generally frowned upon by the public, as many Canadians don't understand our electoral system.

However, 1985 was a bit different, as the Liberals won the popular vote. If either the NDP or the Liberals won the popular vote, but not the most seats, there would be some legitimacy for the two parties forming some sort of pact.

[DL]

There has only been one election in Canadian history where there was even an issue or possibility of the 2nd and 3rd largest parties forming a government - so its hard to say what is "standard practice". If you look back in Canadian history in almost case up to 2008 you had a situation where the party with the largest number of seats also had an obvious smaller partner party that would be willing to make a formal or informal deal.

Interesting the first ever "hung parliament" in Canada was in 1925 - and in that case the Tories took 115 seats, the Liberals under Mackenzie King took 100 and the Progressives took 22. The Progressives were an earlier version of the CCF/NDP (ie: "Liberals in a hurry") and they backed King's continuation as PM...and no one seemed to mind. in fact when the government fell a year later and the so-called King/Byng controversy erupted - the liberals under King regained their majority in the 1926 election!

If you look at subsequent minority parliaments, it was pretty obvious who not only had the most seats but also had a "mandate" and was most likely to be able to govern:

1957 - The Tories GAINED 61 seats to get 112 and the Liberals lost 60 to end up with 105 - the CCF had 25 seats and Social Credit had 19. The Liberals actually won the popular vote by 100,000. Theoretically St. Laurent could have tried to stay in power but after having lost 60 seats and the plurality and with PC+Social Credit outnumbering Liberal+CCF it was clear that the jog was up and St. Laurent resigned on election night. Diefenbaker formed a minority gov't but called a snap election less than a year later and won the biggest majority in Canadian history

1962 - The PC lost their majority and got 116 seats to the Liberals 99, Social Credit took 30 and the NDP took 19. The Liberals had no way of forming a government since at the time the NDP had no great desire to make Pearson PM since their long term goal was to replace the Liberals and in any case the ultra rightwing Social Credit party was willing to prop up the Tories in the short-term - so there was no obvious non-Tory government possible.

1963, 1965, 1972 - in each of these elections the Liberals had the largest number of seats AND the NDP had enough seats to let the Liberals pass legislation - the PCs and Social Credit did not have enough seats to great a 2nd party + 3rd or 4th party government...if the PCs had taken one seats more than the Liberals in 1972 instead of one seat fewer - who knows what would have happened. But keep in mind that in those days there was virtually no ideological difference whatsoever between the Liberals and PCs and so there would have been little motivation for the NDP to keep the Trudeau Liberals in power over Stanfield's PCs - unless maybe the Liberals would would have made some grand gesture such as making NDP leader david Lewis minister of Finance!

1979 - The PCs under Clark were just six seats short of a majority and all they needed was support from the 6 Social Credit MPs to survive (Clark mishandled this though)...the math was never there for the Liberals to stay in office with NDP support.

2004 - The Liberals won the most seats and there was no sentiment on the part of the NDP or the Bloc Quebecois to overthrow Martin and install Stephen Harper as PM so Martin limped along...though its worth noting that Harper, layton and Duceppe wrote a letter to the GG at the time to make clear that IF the Liberal minority government fell, there was the option of asking the leader of the second largest party - Harper - to try to form a government rather than an automatic dissolution.       

2006 - The Harper Conservatives won a plurality of seats. Theoretically Martin could have tried to stay in power - but the NDP didn't have enough seats to help him pass a Throne Speech and the BQ had a pathological hatred of the federal liberals under Martin and made it clear that there was no way that they would be complicit in keep the Liberals in power - so Martin quit on election night

2008 - we all know the long, sad story of the coalition that wasn't etc...so i won't repeat it

My point is that IF after the 2015 election we end up with the CPC getting  a plurality of seats but the NDP and Liberals together have vastly more seats than the CPC (something like CPC 130, NDP 110, Libs 98) - it will be the first time in Canadian history that the math is there for the 2nd largest party for pass a Throne Speech with the support of the 3rd largest party. There is no precedent and we don't know how the public would react. NDP and Liberal voters are extremely anti-Conservative in a way that was not the case in past minority situations. 

[Hatman 🍁]

If that were the seat total, and the three parties were essentially tied in the popular vote, then I could see Canadians not being too upset with the thought of an NDP-led pact with the Liberals.

What will most likely happen though is that their the NDP or Liberals start to pull ahead, and most anti-Tory votes will coalesce behind either party. Doesn't mean we'd get a majority, but it would mean that either the NDP or Liberals would have a comfortable plurality of the seats, and thus a clear mandate to govern.
 

[Boston Bread]

Latest ekos numbers have the liberals fading fast.



http://www.ipolitics.ca/2015/06/05/the-ekos-poll-mulcair-is-picking-up-all-the-marbles-as-trudeau-fades

[RogueBeaver]

At this rate they'll be at Iggy levels before Canada Day.