Admiral Beez
Superstar
Thanks for catching that, I had the 2006 election results above, not 2008.
|
|
|
2015 Federal Election
- Thread starter King of Kensington
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Is this important? Why would a three party coalition be out of the question?
BurlOak
Senior Member
In 2008, if you were GG, it would be much easier to consider that the Conservatives would be able to command the confidence of the house (since they just had a weeks prior), than it would be to imagine that a coalition of 3 would last.
christiesplits
Senior Member
In the event that a Liberal + NDP coalition forms, what areas do you feel there could be consensus to push through policy?
WislaHD
Superstar
Electoral Reform.
Of course they would want different systems so there could be a fight (or compromise) there.
I also feel that they are roughly on the same page on infrastructure investment. The Liberals aren't going to reject the NDP's dedicated transit fund.
JGHali
Active Member
There is no "precedent" from 2008 because no new constitutional convention was made. The PM remains PM until resignation, regardless of his or her party's strength in the Commons. If the PM loses a confidence vote, e.g. on the Throne Speech, he can either resign or ask the GG for a new election. The latter would be extremely unusual and probably untenable immediately after an election, so resignation is more or less the only option.
In Ontario in 1985, it wasn't until two months after the election that the Liberals and NDP signed an agreement to defeat the Miller government. In the 1985 election, the PCs had won only a handful of more seats than the Liberals, but the Liberals had actually won more of the popular vote. There is absolutely no convention or precedent requiring any coalition or alliance need be made prior to an election result. Absolutely none.
In 2008, the Harper Conservatives won almost twice as many seats as the Liberals. I was a coalition supporter at the time, but it is certainly true that it was something of an ungainly arrangement. I think there is a lot of reasonable question about the constitutionality of prorogation at that time - certainly in the spirit of parliamentary supremacy anyway - but it's also true that the additional time resulted in the Liberals bailing and Ignatieff taking the leadership in something of an internal coup.
If this year the Conservatives do win a plurality of seats, there is a strong chance that the second-place finisher will be fairly close in the seat count. If so, I think it's fairly likely that the 1985 Ontario situation will occur for the first time at the federal level. If, however, there is a big spread between the Conservatives and the second-place party, it's going to be less certain. We might be more likely to see a brief Conservative minority, followed by a confidence defeat some time later, and then early elections.
To re-emphasize, no party leader can go to the GG to "request" the opportunity to form a government. The sitting PM remains PM until resignation, and afterwards it is at the GG's discretion who he requests to attempt to form a government.
In Ontario in 1985, it wasn't until two months after the election that the Liberals and NDP signed an agreement to defeat the Miller government. In the 1985 election, the PCs had won only a handful of more seats than the Liberals, but the Liberals had actually won more of the popular vote. There is absolutely no convention or precedent requiring any coalition or alliance need be made prior to an election result. Absolutely none.
In 2008, the Harper Conservatives won almost twice as many seats as the Liberals. I was a coalition supporter at the time, but it is certainly true that it was something of an ungainly arrangement. I think there is a lot of reasonable question about the constitutionality of prorogation at that time - certainly in the spirit of parliamentary supremacy anyway - but it's also true that the additional time resulted in the Liberals bailing and Ignatieff taking the leadership in something of an internal coup.
If this year the Conservatives do win a plurality of seats, there is a strong chance that the second-place finisher will be fairly close in the seat count. If so, I think it's fairly likely that the 1985 Ontario situation will occur for the first time at the federal level. If, however, there is a big spread between the Conservatives and the second-place party, it's going to be less certain. We might be more likely to see a brief Conservative minority, followed by a confidence defeat some time later, and then early elections.
To re-emphasize, no party leader can go to the GG to "request" the opportunity to form a government. The sitting PM remains PM until resignation, and afterwards it is at the GG's discretion who he requests to attempt to form a government.
urbandreamer
recession proof
It's either going to be a majority PC or majority Liberal gov't.
JGHali
Active Member
I think any majority government is exceedingly unlikely at this point. There's perhaps an outside chance that the Conservatives will cling to one, but will be essentially impossible for the Liberals.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
My guess is that the Libs-Dippers split the vote and the Cons gets their majority.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think the PM can stay PM for up to 6 months after an election before parliament must be recalled. It is quite possible that if Harper gets the most seats he will spend a few months to adopt some Liberal and NDP policies and resume parliament in January.
The interesting thing is that if Mulcair gets less seats and props up Trudeau, he will likely never become PM because then Trudeau would be viewed as the representative of the left. Same story if the result is the other way around.
Thus I think there would not form a true coalition. But the one with more seats would oust Harper to become PM but the other would be working hard to break up the arrangement so that the party in power would not have time to be viewed as competent.
The interesting thing is that if Mulcair gets less seats and props up Trudeau, he will likely never become PM because then Trudeau would be viewed as the representative of the left. Same story if the result is the other way around.
Thus I think there would not form a true coalition. But the one with more seats would oust Harper to become PM but the other would be working hard to break up the arrangement so that the party in power would not have time to be viewed as competent.
Videodrome
Senior Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/26/jason-kenney-brothels-trudeau_n_8199480.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
Jason Kenney went a little crazy.
Jason Kenney went a little crazy.
JGHali
Active Member
No. There is too much regional variation in support, to the extent that there is a lot less direct Liberal-NDP competition than you might think. And the emergence of any true three-way race in Ontario is still going to cost the Cons seats either way.
adma
Superstar
But I do think it's possible that Harper could wind up with a the-heck-with-it "Cameron majority", i.e. voters opting for status quo simply out of eye-rolling at the bickering. And with that (and borne out by riding polls, not that we should take them *too* much to heart), seats that nobody'd thought would stay Con, stay Con (Etobicoke Centre, for one)
Videodrome
Senior Member
In Manitoba, the Liberals and Conservatives have equal support. They don't like the NDP there.
No one is getting a majority, especially not the CPC.
No one is getting a majority, especially not the CPC.
Last edited:
