Globe and Mail Predicts NDP Win

[flamingfingers]

Considering all three options are pretty weak, it may cause a lot of apathy.

I am considering that ONE option is very strong!

That is the option to get rid of the HarperCons by getting out the vote of the younger group to vote for any party OTHER than the Cons!

Those of us who still believe in exercising their mandate should take whatever steps we can to try and convince the 20- to 35-year olds to at least take a basic step to support the democratic process by VOTING in an election that will have more bearing on them than us!

[Hassel99]

Maybe I am alone on this, but does anyone feel that this years liberal platform is last elections NDP platform and vise versa?

If I was color blind I would swear Tom was leading the liberals and Justin was the Dipper...

[Merry]

Halfway through this strange election season, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper has hit the ditch. It wasn’t the Duffy trial that knocked him off the road. It was one of those unknown unknowns, a random twist of fate that no one could have foreseen. A dead toddler washed up on a beach, and someone took a picture.

The news went round the world that the child’s family had applied for asylum in Canada and been rejected. It wasn’t true. But a lot of Canadians believed it was. Or if not literally true, then metaphorically true: Mr. Harper has refused to lift a finger to help desperate refugees. He doesn’t care if babies die.

Who could have imagined that refugee policy would become a lightning rod in this campaign? No one, not the voters or the parties or the experts, gave a nanosecond’s thought to Canada’s refugee policy before last week. If Mr. Harper were another person, he would have immediately announced his intention to accept vastly more Syrian asylum-seekers, as well as emergency measures to cut the red tape that keeps them in limbo. He would have found a grateful Syrian family to embrace, and pledged not to sleep until Canada does more.

But Mr. Harper is not that person. He is not a man who alters course. What you see is what you get, as he told the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge the other night. And that’s the problem. We’ve seen Mr. Harper, and we get him. He’s the man without a heart. When he’s gone, not even the most diehard Conservatives will miss him very much.

And gone he will be. A majority government is beyond his reach. He will resign, or the opposition parties will bring him down, and he’ll go quietly. The question now is what, and who, comes after.

If Mr. Harper is in the ditch, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau is cruising. He has had a good summer. He has finally hit on a policy that differentiates him from NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair. Whether it makes sense is up to you. Mr. Trudeau is going to spend his way to growth. He’s going to drag us into deficit and throw billions of dollars at infrastructure projects to tackle a recession we don’t have.

Mr. Trudeau’s challenge is the opposite of Mr. Harper’s: We know he has a heart. But does he have a brain?

Well, he certainly does have platitudes. Mr. Trudeau will create change by creating the growth we need. He will have a growth agenda that trusts in Canadians. That’s what he told Mr. Mansbridge in the series of candidate interviews airing on CBC’s The National this week. Mr. Trudeau’s chief goal in the interview was to sound as if he knew what he was talking about. He didn’t always succeed. For example, he explained that it is tremendously important to fight the Islamic State, but not with planes. Instead we should help train local troops to take the bad guys on. “That hasn’t worked for 10 years,” Uncle Peter responded brusquely.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mulcair is stalled somewhere on the side of the road. We know he has a brain, but outside Quebec he doesn’t seem to have a lot of traction at the moment. The voters in the motherlode of Ontario’s 905-land remain unpersuaded. Wisely, Mr. Mulcair has identified himself with the pragmatic, prudent, prairie strain of the NDP, not the profligate, reckless one. But that strategy has also neutered him. On Mr. Harper’s two strong points – the economy and security – Mr. Mulcair has to sound centrist, mild and reasonable, without sounding dull. This is difficult.

At its heart, this election isn’t really about policies. It’s about change, and leadership, and tone. It is above all a referendum on Mr. Harper, a man who has been around for long enough and whose personal deficits are striking. The electorate’s centre of gravity hasn’t really shifted. People just want someone new.

Albertans didn’t elect NDP Premier Rachel Notley because they suddenly wanted to shut down the oil sands and invest in windmills. They elected her because they were fed up with the old boys, and she was a fresh and credible alternative, and it was past time for a change. Canadians don’t want a radical change of course, either. They want a fresh leader with fresh energy, fresh ideas, and a heart.

They’ll probably wind up with Mr. Mulcair, although that’s just a guess. Some unknown unknown could come along and change everything.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-de ... e26287563/

[Joe Public]

Maybe I am alone on this, but does anyone feel that this years liberal platform is last elections NDP platform and vise versa?

If I was color blind I would swear Tom was leading the liberals and Justin was the Dipper...

Both parties have identified that Canadians want change from "stay the course" Steve, who is disturbingly limited by Conservative ideology, or the lack of it.

Both parties are center left, so they offer similar change.

The only real question is how will they package that change, so it's not hard to understand that many of their policies are similar.

I like the idea of a coalition NDP / Liberal government.

[Hassel99]

If they are going to make a coalition they need to do it BEFORE the election, Voters need to know what goverment they are voting for.

[Merry]

Trudeau has said he will NOT form a coalition with the NDP.

However, he hasn't said he wouldn't consider one with the Cons. And given that there has been some media speculation that he would join with the Cons if it was the only road to power, it's interesting that he's never denied it.

[Merry]

A prime minister whose government is defeated in the House of Commons ceases to be prime minister. The Governor General is no longer obliged to follow his counsel. Normally, the Governor General would then invite the second party in the House to try and form a government, rather than agree to call another election as the ousted PM might prefer.

The second party (NDP or Liberal) could attempt to govern as a minority. Or, it could sign an agreement with the third party, or enter into a formal coalition.

When Justin Trudeau was asked if the Liberal party would form a coalition government with the NDP, at first he said: maybe not with Tom Mulcair as NDP leader; if someone else were leader it might make sense. Later, Trudeau was unequivocal: no to any coalition with the NDP.

Does Justin Trudeau expect to win an outright majority in the election scheduled for this coming October? He wants Canadians to think he can do it. So he would prefer not to talk about coalition government, which implies a minority or "hung" parliament.

The fact remains: turn down one coalition partner, the door opens to another. When the Liberals reject the NDP, they embrace Conservatives.

During the minority Harper governments of 2006-08 and 2008-11, Canada was governed by a silent Liberal-Conservative partnership. The two parties did not sign an agreement or consult on policy matters, and would not have liked to be told they were governing the country in coalition. But they were in everything but name.

When offered an opportunity to form a substantial coalition with the NDP, the Liberals first accepted, and then, when Michael Ignatieff had replaced Stéphane Dion as leader, rejected the NDP proposal -- and continued to vote regularly to support the Conservatives.

On important issues of economic policy (taxes, trade, spending cuts) the three Liberal majority governments (1993-97, 1997-2000, 2000-2003) headed by Jean Chrétien were barely distinguishable from the two Conservative majority governments (1984-88, 1988-93) headed by Brian Mulroney.

Historically, Canadian capitalists while opposing the CCF/NDP have always had two parties to support them. The Liberals were the Catholic party with a base in Quebec. The Conservatives were the Protestant party based in Ontario. The parties disagreed on specific issues, but on subsidizing the capitalist economy there was little difference.

John Ibbitson of the Globe and Mail has written that there is very little to choose between the Conservatives and the Liberals on the main economic issues, so it would make more sense for Trudeau to align himself with Harper than with the NDP. Certainly the Liberal leader had no trouble accepting former Conservative MP Eve Adams as a member of his caucus.

Strategic voters might want a coalition of Liberals and the NDP, and encourage voting Liberal to see a progressive government of the centre left being formed. Indeed from 1963 until 1968, without a formal coalition, the Liberals and NDP combined their votes, and created the modern Canadian welfare state (medicare, CPP, post-secondary education grants, universal welfare, Art Bank). Again between 1972 and 1974, the minority Trudeau Liberals looked to the NDP for policy ideas such as Petro-Canada, and received in return NDP support in the House.

Except that when he closes the door to a coalition arrangement with the NDP, Justin Trudeau is committing to support the Conservatives, if they win the most seats in a minority parliament, just as his Liberal predecessors did.

In fact, rather than wooing the NDP, the Liberals could well seek support from the Conservatives, should the Trudeau-led party dominate a minority parliament.

A clear majority of Canadians want nothing to do with Stephen Harper and want the country to be rid of his government. This group is trying to figure out how to vote Harper out of office.

Canadians vote to elect a parliament. Members of Parliament decide who forms the government.

It makes sense for progressive activists to question Liberal party candidates about their willingness to support a minority Conservative government and their attitude to a Liberal government supported by the Conservatives.

Why would any progressive vote for a candidate who is not committed to rejecting the Harper government?

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/04/tru ... artnership

[Merry]

The National Observer once asked Trudeau directly which Party he would consider forming a coalition with, in the event the Libs won a minority.

His answer was interesting, because he said he would never form a coalition with either Harper or the NDP. He didn't say he wouldn't form one with the Cons.

Given that popular opinion is that Harper would resign following an election loss, that means Trudeau has deliberately left the door open to forming a coalition with the Cons following Harper's resignation.

Throughout the video clip he is very careful to criticize Harper personally, as opposed to the Conservative Party, and at no time does he rule out a coalition with the Cons.

Interestingly, he then goes on to say that Mulcair has flip flopped on the coalition issue; but frankly I've never heard him do any such thing. He's always been very clear that he would be open to the idea, in the event that he won a minority, but that Trudeau slams the door on it every time it is discussed. No flip flopping there; he's been very clear.

You can watch Trudeau being asked the question here, and then decide for yourself:

[logicalview]

His answer was interesting, because he said he would never form a coalition with either Harper or the NDP. He didn't say he wouldn't form one with the Cons.

Given that popular opinion is that Harper would resign following an election loss, that means Trudeau has deliberately left the door open to forming a coalition with the Cons following Harper's resignation.

Hmmm...that is interesting. As long as JT doesn't want to form a coalition with the dreaded NDP, then all is good. I could definitely see the Liberals and the Conservatives teaming up to ensure that the union-controlled NDP is kept as far away from power as possible, purely because that serves the public's interests.

[Joe Public]

If he wins a Liberal minority; the best plan for Canadians is for him to not form a coalition with anyone. That way, every policy can be scrutinized and debated by Canadians, and supported or not supported by the other parties. Canada does not live in a democracy; but with a majority government, lives in a dictatorship which is democratically renewed every 4 years.

People want change, Conservative ideology has failed, and I can't see anyone supporting Conservatives in any manner.

[Merry]

Unfortunately, the fact is that if a minority Party want's to survive they will have to form some kind of partnership with one of the other Parties. It may not be a formal coalition but, if they don't come to some kind of arrangement, they will surely be defeated in fairly short order.

And then we'd have to have another election (groan).

[logicalview]

Unfortunately, the fact is that if a minority Party want's to survive they will have to form some kind of partnership with one of the other Parties. It may not be a formal coalition but, if they don't come to some kind of arrangement, they will surely be defeated in fairly short order.

And then we'd have to have another election (groan).

I could see the Trudeau Liberals working with the Conservatives. If it was up to the NDP, Canadians would go to the polls every other week. What's another $300 million of taxpayer cash to the NDP? Nothing!

[GordonH]

I see every side have has large amount of threads in the election section, point fingers at each other candidates.

Hey I have a prediction its coming up to quarter after 5 in evening, I predict Kelowna is heading into nightfall in next number of hours.