Election 2015

[stealthylizard]

I'm predicting the results in 2015 going one of two ways:

Conservative minority, with the Liberal Party becoming the official Opposition; or
Liberal majority, with the Conservative Party getting annihilated, but with enough to form the official Opposition.

There is a big enough bloc of "anything but conservative" voters to ensure Harper doesn't win another majority.  Trudeau will be able to get enough of that bloc to vote for the Liberal Party over that of Mulcair and the NDP. 

Harper will be replaced before 2019, unless he forms another majority government, but even then, his expiration date will be the 2019 election. 

Trudeau will definitely become Prime Minister in 2019, if not sooner.

No predictions about Mulcair's future.  His time in the spotlight is done after the next election.  I think he has done a great job as the Opposition leader, while knowing that the NDP will never have the numbers to become the party in power.

 

[ModlrMike]

You overlook the challenge of Quebec for the Liberals. In order for either of your forecasts to occur, the Liberals have to take Quebec in large numbers. I'm not sure that's a realistic outcome. Personally, I think the Bloc will be resurgent and potentially displace the NDP as opposition.

 

[Remius]

You overlook the challenge of Quebec for the Liberals. In order for either of your forecasts to occur, the Liberals have to take Quebec in large numbers. I'm not sure that's a realistic outcome. Personally, I think the Bloc will be resurgent and potentially displace the NDP as opposition.

Not likely.  The Bloc is in complete shambles.  their current leader Mario Beaulieu is too polarising and controversial, even party stalwarts dislike him.  His caucus is leaving slowly but surely.  Rumours of more departures are swirling.  He will be marginalised by people like Duceppe and Bouchard who will not lift a finger or might even impede any success he may hope to achieve.  They are no where near ready for a campaign within a year.  The seperatist movement as a whole is suffering an existensial crisis and the they will be more focussed on reclaiming what hey can at the provincial level than at the federal level.  Quebec will be a battle between the NDP and Liberals.  I estimate the NDP will lose half their seats to them in that province if not more. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

M. Trudeau is on a roll, let there be no question about that; but he's "rolling" uphill and we all know how hard that is to do.

M. Trudeau must do two things:

    1. Beat Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in Quebec and Atlantic Canada  where, now, the NDP have 61 of 108 seats, versus 21 for the the Liberals. My guess is that the Liberals must almost reverse those numbers; and

    2. Beat both the NDP and Conservatives in Ontario and BC where the Conservatives have 92 of 142 seats and the NDP have 32 versus only 14 for the Liberals. The Liberals must turn 80 of those seats and hold on to
        the few (2, actually) seas they hold in other regions and get half of the 30 new seats in order to form a majority government.

The conventional wisdom is that the Conservatives will attack the Liberals on the right and the NDP will attack on the left and the Liberals will be "sitting pretty" in the all important political centre.

My guess is that the NDP will, indeed, attack from the left, in French, in Quebec where left wing economic and politics are both very popular. I doubt, however, that Prime Minister Harper will attack from the right. My guess is that he will campaign from a firmly centrist position: challenging M. Trudeau to come to him with policies, M. Trudeau's weak suit. That's why M. Mulcair is going to announce real policies early: he senses that M. Trudeau is uncomfortable with policy. The Liberal campaign is all about "selling the sizzle, not the steak."

It, "selling the sizzle, not the steak," is Marketing 101 and is gospel in many businesses, and has been for a generation or more ...

         

                    ... but marketing guru Elmer Wheeler (who coined the phrase) taught his folks that while they should sell "sizzle" they had to have a steak underneath it all. M. Mulcair is betting that M. Trudeau
                        and his campaign team have no steaks, all they have is the sizzle that is M. Trudeau's personality.

M. Trudeau has 37 seats, today, in the House of Commons. He needs 170 to form a majority government; that's 130+ new seats he must take away from the Conservative and Liberals. Can he do it? Maybe. Will it be easy? No, no easier than rolling uphill is for you or me.

 

[s2184]

What a Coalition Government is capable of?

If there are NATO, European Union, UN exist crossing international boundaries, why there cannot be an effective coalition government that is not possible within Canada?

Why team work of different parties should not be the mandatory part of governing Canada? Parties cannot share power among them based on the number of seats in the parliament?

There cannot be a better Prime Minister for Canada other than Hon. Harper?

 

[Remius]

Coalition governments are possible and legal in our system.  But one party will likely hum and haw about it despite it being legal.

The problem is that party leaders and party officials balk at coalitions.  Personalities and party policy get in the way which makes coalitions very difficult to create and maintain.  Compromise is needed and many if not all are not willing to do that.  Plus it means conceding power to one of the coalition partners. 

 

[a_majoor]

Yes coalition governments are legal, but the question is "why" would we want a coalition?

The expressed will of the voters is essentially overturned by the formation of a coalition (with the exception of a wartime "unity" government, the two or more parties running on a coalition government platform or if the vote split results in a tie, which is unlikely. Even in that case, the better solution would be to have another election).

In the case of Ontario, we have had an unofficial coalition prior to the last election, where the party in power (Liberals) essentially crawled on their hands and knees to the NDP to retain power, proposing policies and budgets which the NDP would vote for, and then enacting them after being voted in the house. Taking the PCPO out of the equation for the moment, how do you think Liberal voters felt about turning government over to the NDP?

WRT your examples of international organizations, they have relatively clear mandates, but are also constrained by the domestic politics and concerns of the partners. This would also be the case in any coalition government, so it is unclear how this would result in "better" outcomes for Canadians. Looking at the confused response by NATO over the Russian destabilization and invasion of Ukraine, which is a pretty clear cut problem, do you imagine a coalition government being able to respond to domestic emergencies any better? If they are unable to do so in the face of a very clear and present danger, would coalitions be able to respond effectively to more diffused or nebulous problems?

As for s2184' last question, perhaps there is a "better" possible Prime Minister out there (I can think of some people on this website who would get my vote), but so far no one with the combination of intelligence, will power, tactical political skill, strategic vision and (lets face it) "street smarts" than the Right Hon Stephen Harper has stepped up to the plate. It will be very interesting to look at the potential candidates within the CPC (and possibly outsiders) who might become the next leader of the CPC and potentially Prime Minister, and there is even a thread on that somewhere.

 

[Remius]

Yes coalition governments are legal, but the question is "why" would we want a coalition?

The expressed will of the voters is essentially overturned by the formation of a coalition (with the exception of a wartime "unity" government, the two or more parties running on a coalition government platform or if the vote split results in a tie, which is unlikely. Even in that case, the better solution would be to have another election).

The expressed will of SOME voters.  And certainly not a majority.  Forming a government has nothing to do with voters.  it has to do with having the support of a majority of seats in the house.  The same reason we don't get to choose our Prime Minister.  Voters elect a representative to hold that seat.  They might vote in the hopes that the seat in question supports the party or leader  or what not.  But it's whoever controls the support of a majority of those seats and can hold the confidence of the house that forms the government.

And while it may seem like semantics to some, it is exactly what the westminster parliamentary system is about.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with Crantor. The UK has a coalition, right now, because the Brits have a horror of minority governments and the Liberal-Democrats decided to partner with the Conservatives, who won the most seats, to form a stable (majority) government.

I can see two potential coalitions in 2015:

          A well left of centre NDP~Liberal coalition or a Liberal~Conservative coalition on the centre-right.

I think, however, that Canadians, being very, very immature in politics, like minority governments which are, too often, coalitions in everything but name. (We had a de facto Conservative-Liberal coalition from 2006 until 2011. The Conservatives tailored their policies to get Liberal support and stayed in power.)

 

[ModlrMike]

I think most voters would have no issue with a coalition government if they knew that was one possible outcome. When the party leaders vehemently reject the notion during the campaign, and then conspire after the election to effectively overturn the result is where we have a problem.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think most voters would have no issue with a coalition government if they knew that was one possible outcome. When the party leaders vehemently reject the notion during the campaign, and then conspire after the election to effectively overturn the result is where we have a problem.

I agree with you, and I would be happy to hear Stephen Harper say, "Yes, I will form a coalition with M. Trudeau's party IF they will agree to a) economic issue 1; b) economic issue 2; and c) smaller government issue 3. We, in turn, are willing to go along with the Liberal Party's i) social policy issue 4, and ii) law and order issue 5." He would, I would hope, go on to say: "A coalition between we Conservatives and the NDP is not possible because we are too far apart on too many economic issues."

 

[s2184]

There can be more things done through coalition. But the question is about the maturity of the parties to work towards it.  If they can unite together only in war times to get the best output, that is too bad for the country. May be Canadian Politics has to grow, and wait another 100 years for its maturity?

 

[a_majoor]

There can be more things done through coalition. But the question is about the maturity of the parties to work towards it.  If they can unite together only in war times to get the best output, that is too bad for the country. May be Canadian Politics has to grow, and wait another 100 years for its maturity?

There can also be more things done via a majority government, or if you want to go all the way, a dictatorship has few impediments to carrying out actions.

Going the other way, the pre civil war United States was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as a "Nation of associations", with a very limited central government and relatively weak State governments, yet a great deal "got done" by people getting together within their associations, pooling ideas and resources and carrying out plans. This was a period where the US rapidly reached and surpassed the industrial output of major European nations, rapidly settled vast areas of the continent and laid the groundwork for globe spanning commercial enterprises.

To suggest that government is the "only" vehicle for getting things done shows a very limited conception of how things work. Come to think of it, you have never stated just what sorts of "things" should be done (either by government or private sector). All I am really reading is a thinly veiled and very non specific attack against the current government and political party.

 

[s2184]

What I will do?

In regards to Election 2015, I will vote for Conservative if Liberal seems stronger by the time of the election. I will not vote for Conservative if it seems stronger at the election time. In that case I have to still decide to whom I am going to vote.  :

I agree with you that it cannot be all the government, but private sectors, and other entities can play significant roles to deliver best output for the nation.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to my notion that M. Trudeau is trying to manage an uphill roll (a difficult thing), a report in the Toronto Star says:

    "Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives still trail the Liberals in the polls but continue to cut into that lead for the second month in a row, the latest survey by Forum Research shows ... The Sept. 5 poll of nearly 1,300 Canadian
      adults found that the 16-point lead Justin Trudeau’s Liberals held over the Conservatives in July has dropped to six points ... Last month the Liberal lead was nine points ... The Liberals have the support of 40 per cent of Canadians,
      down slightly from last month’s 41 per cent support. The Conservatives meanwhile saw their support rise slightly from to 34 per cent 32 per cent ... [and] ... The NDP had the support of 18 per cent of respondents, up from
      17 per cent last month. "

 

[Infanteer]

I suspect coalitions are very difficult for Canada for the following reasons:

1.  Us, more than the Brits, have inherited more (through osmosis) of the "dueling parties" culture of the U.S.  Although adversarial politics is a part of the Westminster system, we seem to have grafted on some of it's uglier parts in an effort to imitate our neighbours.

2.  The regional nature of our politics (class in the UK, race in the US, regions in Canada).  This would lead voter bases to claim their party is "selling out" the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North in favour of a coalition managed by a party of the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North.

3.  The unparalleled concentration of power in the PMO's office, where the shots are called.  Coalitions work when all parties are given equal parts to play in Cabinet - but would this matter in our system where so much decision making is concentrated in the PMO's office? 

 

[dapaterson]

A coalition might slow the concentration of power in the PMO.  A subsequent majority would probably see regression to the mean, but from a transparency in governance perspective it might be good.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect coalitions are very difficult for Canada for the following reasons:

1.  Us, more than the Brits, have inherited more (through osmosis) of the "dueling parties" culture of the U.S.  Although adversarial politics is a part of the Westminster system, we seem to have grafted on some of it's uglier parts in an effort to imitate our neighbours.

2.  The regional nature of our politics (class in the UK, race in the US, regions in Canada).  This would lead voter bases to claim their party is "selling out" the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North in favour of a coalition managed by a party of the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North.

3.  The unparalleled concentration of power in the PMO's office, where the shots are called.  Coalitions work when all parties are given equal parts to play in Cabinet - but would this matter in our system where so much decision making is concentrated in the PMO's office?

I agree, whole heartedly, with your first point. Remember the old joke ...

          Canada is, potentially, the luckiest country in the world: is is the heir to English political wisdom, French cuisine and American industrial 'know how.'
                    Sadly it got English industrial 'know how,' American cuisine and French political wisdom ...

I also agree with your second point, but I'm not sure it is quite a dominant as you think. I'm still of my "Old Canada"/"new Canada" mindset but, I suspect that it is not quite as simple as originally (by Michael Bliss?) presented or as remembered by me. "Old Canada" is, indeed, everything East of the Ottawa River; "New Canada" is BC, AB, SK and MB. Ontario, vote rich Ontario, is the swinging gate which connects the two but, as it swings it strengthens the political power of one or the other.

I don't think your third point takes sufficient account of the complexity of coalitions nor of the power struggle that exists, in all Westminster systems, between the PMO (or its Australian, British, German or whatever equivalents) and the PCO/Cabinet Office, etc. (The Americans, because they use the spoils system of management ~ imagine if, after every election, not only the ministers changed, as they do in most democracies, but also the DMs and the ADMs changed, that's the US system ~ have political management way too far down into departments and agencies so this is no permanent, civil service vision (or master plan) for the country, their partisan political programme always prevails ...

         

          The real government, as we all learned from "yes Minister."

... we have to remember that, as Jim Hacker taught us, in our, Westminster, system, “The Opposition aren’t really the opposition. They are just called the Opposition. But, in fact, they are a government in exile. The Civil Service are the Opposition in residence.” (See, also, this.)

First point: coalitions are not and should not be "equal," in good, workable coalitions, Germany almost always has on, one party has most of the power while the other gets some of its policies and some portfolios.

Second:the key decisions almost always, see e.g. Cameron and Merkel, today, reside with the head of government (PM or Chancellor) and his/her most senior officials (PCO/PMO).

 

[Brad Sallows]

The flaw of a coalition - assuming you have the interests of Canada at heart - is that the partners have to compromise, and the easiest compromise is for them to mutually agree to pay for things they want using someone else's money.

The realistic candidates for PM are Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair.  I think Mulcair could be trusted not to get Canada bent over in an international forum up against savvy leaders like Merkel and Putin, but not Trudeau - lamb to slaughter.  But Mulcair is a long shot.  Given the choices, the best candidate for Canada is Harper.

 

[Infanteer]

I also agree with your second point, but I'm not sure it is quite a dominant as you think. I'm still of my "Old Canada"/"new Canada" mindset but, I suspect that it is not quite as simple as originally (by Michael Bliss?) presented or as remembered by me. "Old Canada" is, indeed, everything East of the Ottawa River; "New Canada" is BC, AB, SK and MB. Ontario, vote rich Ontario, is the swinging gate which connects the two but, as it swings it strengthens the political power of one or the other.

My view is the "Old/New Canada" view is overly simplistic.  Having lived out West for a significant portion of my life, there is very much a "Western" mentality when it comes to identity and politics.  Ottawa and Toronto are often used as whipping boys and are portrayed by some (many?) as foreign places from which spring misguided policies and and one of half of official bilingualism.