It sure wasn’t Stephen Harper who wrecked the Liberals in 2011.
Russian, certainly. But y’know, twelve of one, half a two-four of the other…
No weirder than the situation in Northern Ireland, where a local party calling for Northern Ireland to be separated from the UK (and join the Republic of Ireland) routinely wins seats, and then refuses to take those seats.
Not exactly. The Liberals’ chance of winning an outright majority is similar to Clinton’s chances of winning in 2016. But remember that Canada has a multi-party system. The next-most-likely outcome is a Liberal plurality in a coalition government, which would therefore still be primarily Liberal-controlled. Conservative’s chances of winning is in the single digits.
Coalition government is unlikely. We’ve only had one coalition government at the federal level, during WWI.
Confidence and supply agreement may be more likely.
Ah, that’s a distinction that’s lost on me, not being familiar with that system. I would have called any arrangement where no party has an absolute majority, but the plurality party takes most of the control, a coalition, because they still need some sort of cooperation from one or more of the other parties to make that happen, right?
At times like this the governing party holds the confidence of the house, not through an official coalition (where the minority party is brought into government and given ministerial positions and portfolios or etc), but what is more like a “gentleman’s agreement”.
I don’t bring down your government, and you allow me to push key points in my party’s agenda. One hand washes the other, both are now clean.
It is much more unstable as at any time it can split. Often, once one party gets popular again and wants to call a snap election.
A Confidence and Supply Agreement is one where the government promises to push some favoured legislation of the backing party in exchange for continued confidence motions in the government i.e. always supporting the budget. A coalition government is one where the backing party has a role in cabinet. The ruling party would have the PM, Finance, Defence, etc. while they would give the backing party cabinet positions for things like Transport or Housing.
There have been coalition governments at the provincial level. Saskatchewan has had two: one in 1930 (Conservatives and Progressives), and one in 2000 (New Democrats and Liberals). British Columbia has had a few, most recently in 2017 (NDP and Greens). Can’t remember if other provinces have had coalitions.
In all three, the smaller party got seats at the Cabinet.
I think the first formal confidence and supply agreement was in Ontario in 1985, when the Liberals came in second, the NDP came in third, but together had a majority and defeated the Progressive Conservatives. Bob Rae for the NDP agreed to support David Peterson’s Liberals, in exchange for votes on some of the things the NDP campaigned on. (Was it opening up liquor sales to convenience stores?)
The general history in Britain and the Canadian provinces has been that the lesser party in a formal coalition tends to lose seats in the next general election, so c&s agreements have become more common in Canada than formal coalitions.
That has been the status between NDP and Liberals for the last few years. An “arrangement”…Canada doesn’t go for formal coalitions for reasons unclear.
I don’t think Germany for instance has had a majority gov since forever..always coalitions.
If the Cons get the most seats ..the Liberals could still govern under a similar arrangement if the Cons could not get an arrangement with say the Bloc.
Lots of nose holding all around but Quebec will look for any party offering what Quebec wants …it’s far from a national party…very much opportunist.
A Con minority gov would be difficult to navigate as the other parties tend to be further left than the Libs and the current Cons not the Progressive Conservatives of the past…too far right and some consider dumpf lite.
Many voters would like a middle right …always missing in action.
Libs have more choice
There are many rightwingers in my Canadian motorcycle forum making excuses basically claiming the current polls are all crooked to influence the vote yet the same half dozen polling companies called the very recent Ontario Election in late Feb with good accuracy. 
Canadians have a bit of tendency to “vote a party out” not liking the leader rather than voting a party in they like and approve.
“Anyone but Harper” leading to his rout and, “Anyone but Trudeau” even more current…no Trudeau to pillory? ..the pendulumn swung hard away from PP.
I can see why the BQ would accept such an arrangement, but I can’t imagine the CPC heartland out west being willing to give Quebec anything of substance. They already think Quebec gets too much, and there’s no way PP is a good enough politician to cajole the worst of his flock into supporting Quebec in any significant way.
If the election comes down to a contest between the Liberals and Conservatives seeking BQ support for a minority government, the Liberals will win. They already mostly support Quebec, and won’t be as inherently hostile to working with the BQ. Particularly since, as has been mentioned, Quebec thinks it has even more to lose from the 51st state nonsense than the rest of Canada.
They certainly do, but on the other hand, it strikes me that the Partie Quebecois, out of all of the Canadian parties, is the one most prone to faciospiteful rhinoectomy.
Nitpick: Bloc Quebecois, is the federal party. Parti Quebecois is the provincial equivalent.
Also, the Bloc are required to be pragmatic since it has no power to hold a provincial referendum or dip into provincial matters (per se). Federal government shapes federal policies.
Put my application in the for Mail in vote. First time.
Don’t think I can vote in the upcoming Australian Federal Election until I get my citizenship which I’m eligible for.
That means I will be required to vote right down to the local level. Best way to do it …even Australians abroad still are required to vote.
Method of voting
Parliament of Australia
The preferential voting system used is an absolute majority system where for election a candidate must obtain more than 50 per cent of the votes in the count.
Trudeau lost a lot of favour when he backed away from putting in a similar voter reform in Canada…they did the analysis and realized they would have lost the last election without FPTP.
So much for ethics.
Gosh no, Ontario didn’t have booze in convenience stores until last year or the year before.
An interesting article from TVO about the 1985 deal. Notably, it was driven by:
- Promote affirmative action for disabled people, minorities, and women
- Create and finance a housing plan for 10,000 co-op and non-profit units
- Introduce new pollution controls to combat acid rain and force polluters to pay
- Reform services for the elderly to provide alternatives to institutional care and review nursing-home licensing and inspections
- Reform laws concerning job security
- Introduce low-interest loans and improve government assistance for farmers
- Recognize and provide financial support for daycare as a basic public service instead of as a form of welfare
I think the deal was that the NDP could introduce the bill, and then it would come to a free vote. No guarantee it would pass.
Normally bills introduced by the opposition are strangled at birth.
That would have been a bizarre thing for the NDP to propose. Taking business AWAY from a government monopoly? The NDP was not exactly pro-business; when they took power they had to be forced by the courts to allow Sunday shopping.
So we have an existential threat from the Americans and the plan is…tax cuts. Fuck my life.
We did the same thing with COVID - declarations of the war footing we need to take and ultimately it winds up being more like someone struggling to get out of a comfy seat.
But I can put $5000 more in my TFSA, as long as I invest in Canadian companies!
/s
Why is PP so empty? He doesn’t even try to be coherent. A diet of nothing, but meaning slogans here in response to a simple question as to why head office is parachuting in Conservative candidates.
