Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???

[Altair]

Here we go again.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Here we go again.

You have to stop teasing me with these quick jabs and then disappearing again lol. I like to see where I am getting punched from lol.

 

[OldSolduer]

TidBits 3 by Master of None

Musings of a somewhat sane person

creators.spotify.com

My thoughts. Yes I am sane - sorta.

 

[NearingZenith]

Continuing from the election thread:

According to ctv the final number for the liberals if 169, so 3 seats shy of a majority. Probably to most stable minority we will ever see

Doesn’t the Speaker always vote to support the continuation of Parliament (ie. with the government) in the event of a tie in confidence motions? So if the Speaker is an opposition MP, the Liberals only need 171 votes (ie. 2 more seats) for an effective majority to stay in power. Without official party status to allow a larger role in Question Period and committees, I would guess many NDP MPs would be eager to be Speaker just to have something to do, notwithstanding the other benefits of being Speaker.

If the Liberals are only 2 seats short of an effective majority, assuming an opposition MP becomes Speaker, that’s a small enough number you could actually offer a cabinet position to entice an opposition MP to cross the floor. One option is Lori Idlout, the NDP MP from Nunavut. She narrowly beat the Liberal candidate in the riding so there’s already large Liberal support in the riding. With the Liberal platform’s focus on the Arctic including investing in dual-use infrastructure, having Lori Idlout cross the floor to be Minister of Northern Affairs helps the government role out that program while incorporating local feedback and ensures an Arctic voice in the cabinet. Seems to be a win-win for Nunavut constituents and the Liberal party.

 

[YZT580]

To my mind if Carney's government sticks to a fairly narrow set of policy objectives that are focused on dealing with the key issues currently facing Canada (the Trump tariffs and security concerns, cost of living/housing, energy and expanding trade) then I don't think he'll have to form an official coalition with any party. The Canadian voting public I don't think will be to happy with any opposition party that interferes with that kind of agenda (unless Carney tries to enact an extremely unpopular policy) so he'll likely muster enough votes to support those policies.

So long as they stay away from legislating on contentious issues...anything with the whiff of "woke" identity politics, major climate change policies/restrictions on Western resource opportunities, major intrusions into areas of Provincial jurisdiction, etc. it will be hard for the opposition to force an election that the majority of Canadians don't want.

So long as the Conservatives replace PP with a leader that has some gravitas I think it could be positive for them as well. If they're seen as being responsible in supporting government policies where they make sense and arguing for improvements/alternatives in a respectful but firm style of opposition then I think they'll overcome some of the reservations that voters in the political centre have about the populist-style conservatives of the PP wing of the party.



Carney won't. He is an avowed net zero follower. I doubt if you will see a new pipeline started in the next 4 years and without expanding our energy output we are doomed to be second-class. During the campaign he proved himself an inveterate liar over and over again. The next week will be interesting: seeing who he selects for cabinet. If he stays with the old guard don't expect change. Having said all that, I do hope, for Canada's sake that I am wrong. I would hate to be able to say I told you so. That is it for this thread.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I wonder if there will be any Dippers willing to cross the floor now that they made it to the lifeboats...

 

[ModlrMike]

I wonder if there will be any Dippers willing to cross the floor now that they made it to the lifeboats...

If the dippers have any sense, they'll take their dismal showing for what it was... a punishment for their being too cozy with the Libs. That's not to say that they won't act against the own self interest.

 

[brihard]

Continuing from the election thread:


Doesn’t the Speaker always vote to support the continuation of Parliament (ie. with the government) in the event of a tie in confidence motions? So if the Speaker is an opposition MP, the Liberals only need 171 votes (ie. 2 more seats) for an effective majority to stay in power. Without official party status to allow a larger role in Question Period and committees, I would guess many NDP MPs would be eager to be Speaker just to have something to do, notwithstanding the other benefits of being Speaker.

If the Liberals are only 2 seats short of an effective majority, assuming an opposition MP becomes Speaker, that’s a small enough number you could actually offer a cabinet position to entice an opposition MP to cross the floor. One option is Lori Idlout, the NDP MP from Nunavut. She narrowly beat the Liberal candidate in the riding so there’s already large Liberal support in the riding. With the Liberal platform’s focus on the Arctic including investing in dual-use infrastructure, having Lori Idlout cross the floor to be Minister of Northern Affairs helps the government role out that program while incorporating local feedback and ensures an Arctic voice in the cabinet. Seems to be a win-win for Nunavut constituents and the Liberal party.

I’d never read up on her before; thanks for that. It’s certainly a compelling notion. Her views and policy stances could be consistent enough with the LPC if she was empowered to work towards housing and resource development in the north, with proper indigenous involvement and consultation. It also ties in to our government’s stated northern focus.

 

[Brad Sallows]

From what I've seen conservatives are afraid of change, especially change that doesn't benefit them, even if benefits others.

Non-cons are more interested in making the country as a whole better.

Define "better".

I haven't seen any surveys of self-estimated "happiness" of Canadians who self-identify as progressive or conservative. I know that surveys taken in the US tend to find conservatives are more satisfied, happy, content, whatever.

Canada is where it is because Canadian conservatives don't really move the ball very far in their direction when they hold office, and non-conservatives have held the federal government and made the big changes for about 60% of the past 50 years. In my time as a young adult, houses were still affordable, I didn't hear about emergency room closures or ambulance staffing shortages, educators weren't screaming for more people in the classrooms, people didn't shit themselves over neighbours with firearms, etc, etc. I stipulate that life now is better in many ways - relative affordability of other necessities like food and clothing, advanced technology, etc - but those weren't brought to us by progressive governments. Those things result mostly from unfettered or only loosely fettered innovators and entrepreneurs doing their things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

It's messed up MPs are allowed to do this.

Harper did it to useful effect; there's nothing wrong with it. People can vote by party, but the regulating principle is that they are electing a representative; a representative might reasonably want to be where he is effective. Example: David Emerson.

If you want messed up, consider that the PM can be a person not elected to the House but I gather the Leader of the Opposition cannot. Fine "democracy" we have going here. Cue all the regular apologists who make excuses for the benefits of unwritten constitutions and customs.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Harper did it to useful effect; there's nothing wrong with it. People can vote by party, but the regulating principle is that they are electing a representative; a representative might reasonably want to be where he is effective. Example: David Emerson.

I'm voting for someone to represent me in a party that shares my ethics and beliefs.

Someone I vote for who switches parties is going to be useless in so far as representing me. MPs are whipped into voting in alignment with the party. If they stray too far from the path they get booted and are even more useless. Part of representing me means being in an effective spot to do so.

MPs don't switch parties to better represent their constituents and their constituents are exactly why they were elected.

@Infanteer
See above

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm voting for someone to represent me in a party that shares my ethics and beliefs.

Someone I vote for who switches parties is going to be useless in so far as representing me. MPs are whipped into voting in alignment with the party. If they stray too far from the path they get booted and are even more useless. Part of representing me means being in an effective spot to do so.

MPs don't switch parties to better represent their constituents and their constituents are exactly why they were elected.

We want highly competent people to serve in Parliament.

We cannot guarantee that highly competent people will not end up warming a bench for four or five years if their party doesn't win.

I suppose a solution for someone whose time is wasted as an opposition critic is to immediately resign.

 

[Maxman1]

Continuing from the election thread:


Doesn’t the Speaker always vote to support the continuation of Parliament (ie. with the government) in the event of a tie in confidence motions? So if the Speaker is an opposition MP, the Liberals only need 171 votes (ie. 2 more seats) for an effective majority to stay in power. Without official party status to allow a larger role in Question Period and committees, I would guess many NDP MPs would be eager to be Speaker just to have something to do, notwithstanding the other benefits of being Speaker.

If the Liberals are only 2 seats short of an effective majority, assuming an opposition MP becomes Speaker, that’s a small enough number you could actually offer a cabinet position to entice an opposition MP to cross the floor. One option is Lori Idlout, the NDP MP from Nunavut. She narrowly beat the Liberal candidate in the riding so there’s already large Liberal support in the riding. With the Liberal platform’s focus on the Arctic including investing in dual-use infrastructure, having Lori Idlout cross the floor to be Minister of Northern Affairs helps the government role out that program while incorporating local feedback and ensures an Arctic voice in the cabinet. Seems to be a win-win for Nunavut constituents and the Liberal party.

Yes and no. While it is very a useful tool for a minority government, it has only happened three times, and has only by Conservatives, incidentally. MPs are under no obligation to run for Speaker and have the right to decline by submitting a letter the day before the vote. So there is no guarantee of an opposition MP becoming Speaker.

 

[CBH99]

Since the election thread is now over (which makes me kinda sad, I'm sure we could probably get another few pages of debate in even though it's over now....)

I don't mean to sound flippant at all, BUUTTT...for all of you who were referencing,4 that "Trump didn't end the Russia vs Ukraine war on Day 1!"

Let's see what Carney can do on Day 1



(Although I feel like measuring accomplishments over the first 100 days is far more fair. And remember kids, it is a contest!

 

[Lumber]

Since the election thread is now over (which makes me kinda sad, I'm sure we could probably get another few pages of debate in even though it's over now....)

I don't mean to sound flippant at all, BUUTTT...for all of you who were referencing,4 that "Trump didn't end the Russia vs Ukraine war on Day 1!"

Let's see what Carney can do on Day 1



(Although I feel like measuring accomplishments over the first 100 days is far more fair. And remember kids, it is a contest!

Apples to oranges my friend. He never said he would get this massive agenda done on dya 1 or the first 100 days. He was talking yesterday about how we need to re-tool our strategic markets to make them horizontally and vertically integrated within Canada, so that, the for example, Canadian cars are made without the components going back and fourth across the border with the US 6 times during their construction. That is going to tkae TIME.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Apples to oranges my friend. He never said he would get this massive agenda done on dya 1 or the first 100 days. He was talking yesterday about how we need to re-tool our strategic markets to make them horizontally and vertically integrated within Canada, so that, the for example, Canadian cars are made without the components going back and fourth across the border with the US 6 times during their construction. That is going to tkae TIME.

... and $ billions

 

[lenaitch]

Continuing from the election thread:


Doesn’t the Speaker always vote to support the continuation of Parliament (ie. with the government) in the event of a tie in confidence motions? So if the Speaker is an opposition MP, the Liberals only need 171 votes (ie. 2 more seats) for an effective majority to stay in power. Without official party status to allow a larger role in Question Period and committees, I would guess many NDP MPs would be eager to be Speaker just to have something to do, notwithstanding the other benefits of being Speaker.

If the Liberals are only 2 seats short of an effective majority, assuming an opposition MP becomes Speaker, that’s a small enough number you could actually offer a cabinet position to entice an opposition MP to cross the floor. One option is Lori Idlout, the NDP MP from Nunavut. She narrowly beat the Liberal candidate in the riding so there’s already large Liberal support in the riding. With the Liberal platform’s focus on the Arctic including investing in dual-use infrastructure, having Lori Idlout cross the floor to be Minister of Northern Affairs helps the government role out that program while incorporating local feedback and ensures an Arctic voice in the cabinet. Seems to be a win-win for Nunavut constituents and the Liberal party.

It's an interesting theory, but I suspect the Liberals, like any other party in power, would want to have a Speaker who is 'in the tent', not just a camp follower.

Since the election thread is now over (which makes me kinda sad, I'm sure we could probably get another few pages of debate in even though it's over now....)

I don't mean to sound flippant at all, BUUTTT...for all of you who were referencing,4 that "Trump didn't end the Russia vs Ukraine war on Day 1!"

Let's see what Carney can do on Day 1



(Although I feel like measuring accomplishments over the first 100 days is far more fair. And remember kids, it is a contest!

Jeez. do we have to mimic everything the US does. According to Wiki, the 'First Hundred Days' was something started by FDR and he was apparently actually referring to the first 100 days of the Congressional session, not his Administration.

I want 'the government' to do stuff, not a guy at a desk with a Sharpie surrounded by a bunch of sycophants.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The next government is shaping up to be much like the last one. If the LPC enters into another agreement with the NDP, we'd be fools not to anticipate a steady bleed of potential "investment" dollars off into social welfare consumption. Buying political support from the NDP or BQ issue-by-issue would amount to much the same thing.

A supply-and-confidence agreement with the CPC is absurdly unlikely, but would send a heckuva "centrist and serious" message to all kinds of communities here and abroad.

 

[Remius]

The next government is shaping up to be much like the last one. If the LPC enters into another agreement with the NDP, we'd be fools not to anticipate a steady bleed of potential "investment" dollars off into social welfare consumption. Buying political support from the NDP or BQ issue-by-issue would amount to much the same thing.

Maybe not at first. The NDP may just negotiate for party status rather than any specific policy asks. Also the LPC knows the NDP is broke and can’t afford a confidence motion that will lead to another election anytime soon.

A supply-and-confidence agreement with the CPC is absurdly unlikely, but would send a heckuva "centrist and serious" message to all kinds of communities here and abroad.

Agreed.

 

[dapaterson]

A supply-and-confidence agreement with the CPC is absurdly unlikely, but would send a heckuva "centrist and serious" message to all kinds of communities here and abroad.

I think there is too much ill will both sides for that to work, but it would be ideal.