Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

Harper and Trudeau are similar in a great many ways. Trudeau supporting bill C-51 just one example of that. The Liberal leader has also said he has no interest in joining a coalition with the NDP. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voiced concern about the "socialist" NDP forming government. I predict that an NDP win in the next election will lead to the Tories and Grits seriously considering a coalition to keep Canada from having a "socialist" government. If not a coalition, they would certainly force an election in a minority situation. Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Personally, I think either outcome would be disastrous and lead to a subsequent NDP majority, but I'm not as sure about that as I am the possibility of a Liberal/Conservative coalition. What do you guys think?

Edited by cybercoma
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what you're rooting for, or do you have any legit reason to believe we're looking at the possibility of PM Thomas Muclair?

At the moment it's a possibility, so I'm looking to discuss what political strategies we might see if that happens.
Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment it's a possibility, so I'm looking to discuss what political strategies we might see if that happens.

I know for a fact the CPC wouldn't prop up JT as a PM. They'd rather watch the NDP shoot themselves in the foot and run again in 2 years.

No way Harper would be leader of the opposition. He'll quit if the NDP win and would an interim leader be Prime Minister propped up by JT? Doubt that very much as well.

Let the NDP rule for awhile and bring them down for whatever reason in 2 years like the Martin government or the recent PQ government in Quebec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is both CPC and LPC paint the NDP as a socialist threat to Canada. I'm not sure that threat would be taken seriously by the electorate if the CPC and LPC allowed the NDP to govern for the first time in history and didn't try to do everything in their power to stop it. Especially if the CPC and LPC have an opportunity to work together to prevent the NDP from governing. If history is any indication, then I agree with you. They'll let them govern from a minority position then take them down in a confidence motion once they've rebuilt from the loss. But if the NDP wins a narrow minority over the CPC, I can see them trying to form a coalition or better still, trying to court floor crossers from the LPC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is both CPC and LPC paint the NDP as a socialist threat to Canada. I'm not sure that threat would be taken seriously by the electorate if the CPC and LPC allowed the NDP to govern for the first time in history and didn't try to do everything in their power to stop it. Especially if the CPC and LPC have an opportunity to work together to prevent the NDP from governing. If history is any indication, then I agree with you. They'll let them govern from a minority position then take them down in a confidence motion once they've rebuilt from the loss. But if the NDP wins a narrow minority over the CPC, I can see them trying to form a coalition or better still, trying to court floor crossers from the LPC.

The CPC would like like massive hypocrites if they formed a coalition after the reaction to the 2008 coupe ERRRR coalition attempt.

I can't speak for the CPC as a collective, but should the NDP win a majority then they have a mandate and they should accept that. They can't really do anything crazy with a minority anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they would be hypocrites, but do you think it would play to the base that the threat of a socialist government is more important to stop than those optics?

I don't think so, but we'll see. Again if it's a minority government the CPC and LCP should have final say on any legislation anyway. That's assuming the BQ doesn't make a resurgence. But an NDP win would have to depend on support from Quebec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know for a fact the CPC wouldn't prop up JT as a PM. They'd rather watch the NDP shoot themselves in the foot and run again in 2 years.

No way Harper would be leader of the opposition. He'll quit if the NDP win and would an interim leader be Prime Minister propped up by JT? Doubt that very much as well.

Let the NDP rule for awhile and bring them down for whatever reason in 2 years like the Martin government or the recent PQ government in Quebec.

Harper will quit anyway... He will quit for sure immediately if he is defeated; Even if majority, he will quit in two years in favor of a new leader before the next election. There is no way Harper will go another full term.

CPC won't prop up JT, and LPC will not prop up Harper. However, party finances will dictate that, if a minority, somebody is going to have to prop up somebody for probably two years at least.

My betting is that, in a minority with CPC plurality, Harper will try to govern. The other two will defeat him ASAP. GG will then go to next highest party to ask if they will govern. Whoever that may be NDP or LPC, the other one will hold their nose and support for the usual recovery period about two years.

And then.... another election. New leader of CPC, some experience with a more left-of-Harper government, the electorate will decide......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper and Trudeau are similar in a great many ways. Trudeau supporting bill C-51 just one example of that. The Liberal leader has also said he has no interest in joining a coalition with the NDP. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voiced concern about the "socialist" NDP forming government. I predict that an NDP win in the next election will lead to the Tories and Grits seriously considering a coalition to keep Canada from having a "socialist" government. If not a coalition, they would certainly force an election in a minority situation. Does anyone else think this is a possibility? Personally, I think either outcome would be disastrous and lead to a subsequent NDP majority, but I'm not as sure about that as I am the possibility of a Liberal/Conservative coalition. What do you guys think?

If Harper loses, he'll quit.

Some say even if he gets a minority he'll be replaced.

Coalition ... isn't really necessary. They can vote together against NDP legislation without a formal coalition and if they can bring the government down, I think they'd choose election over coalition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I predict that an NDP win in the next election will lead to the Tories and Grits seriously considering a coalition to keep Canada from having a "socialist" government.

I doubt it. One scenario that I think is plausible: the Liberals with the most seats then the CPC could offers to support the Liberals on confidence motions for 2 years provided they don't create a formal coalition with the NDP. If the NDP has the most seats it will get to be government but it is unclear whether the Libs would want to be a junior partner to the NDP. If it does not the NDP government will not last long.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this what you're rooting for, or do you have any legit reason to believe we're looking at the possibility of PM Thomas Muclair?

At the moment it's a possibility, so I'm looking to discuss what political strategies we might see if that happens.

Polls are actually pointing to an NDP majority when accounting for momentum

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

An NDP win depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is winning more seats than the other parties and holding onto the public polls for another 4 months. Both tall hills to climb.

Easier hill for the NDP to climb!

Did you really believe that anything was automatically granted to the conservatives or liberals?

:rolleyes:

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

CPC won't prop up JT, and LPC will not prop up Harper. However, party finances will dictate that, if a minority, somebody is going to have to prop up somebody for probably two years at least.

My betting is that, in a minority with CPC plurality, Harper will try to govern. The other two will defeat him ASAP. GG will then go to next highest party to ask if they will govern. Whoever that may be NDP or LPC, the other one will hold their nose and support for the usual recovery period about two years.

And then.... another election. New leader of CPC, some experience with a more left-of-Harper government, the electorate will decide......

Please be specific with whom has an minority when drawing an conclusion.

I'm finding it hard to follow you hypothetical possibilities.

Thank you

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Counting for momentum, the NDP should 80% of the vote by October. hahaequate

Not funny!!!

The way our FPTP system works could actually result something similar in the seats represented in the lower house!

WWWTT

edited to add that 80% of the seats would be an exaggeration.

Edited by WWWTT
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also ask Rachel Notley!

What election was there when JT had his momentum? Bi elections?

WWWTT

So you think the NDP are going to beat the CPC in Alberta because they won in the Provincial race?

Cool keep believe that.

Just like Kathleen Wynne is going to ensure Ontario goes to JT. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think the NDP are going to beat the CPC in Alberta because they won in the Provincial race?

Cool keep believe that.

Just like Kathleen Wynne is going to ensure Ontario goes to JT. :lol:

Polls don't show that the NDP are going to displace the conservatives in Alberta.

But from what I last heard, there is the possibility of the NDP snagging in 5-6 seats around the province!!!

Unless she retires, don't expect Lynda Duncan to walk away from representing her constituents.

As far as Ontario goes, when I last checked, polls show the NDP slightly leading or tied.

Seen the same doubt in the Alberta election thread.

How did that thread go for the conservatives on this site?

WWWTT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please be specific with whom has an minority when drawing an conclusion.

I'm finding it hard to follow you hypothetical possibilities.

Thank you

WWWTT

Okay, I will spell it out.

Harper gets plurality of seats, Mulcair (or JT) gets 2nd highest number, Remaining party (JT or Mulcair) gets 3rd highest number.

Minority government. Number of seats: JT + NDP together more than Harper... Harper + JT together more than NDP, Harper + NDP more than JT.

Harper has plurality, will be asked to govern.

Harper will try to govern, introduce speech from the throne. If he were to get support from EITHER JT or NDP, he would be able to go ahead.... BUT HE WON'T. He will be defeated by combined JT and NDP.

Rather than hold another immediate election, GG will go to next highest (JT or Mulcair) and ask HIM to form government. IF, for example, that is JT, Mulcair won't like it, but will hold his nose and support JT for some period, like two years. In meantime, Harper will step down, new leader, ready for next election 2 years down the line (or whatever).

If, for example, it is MULCAIR who has more seats than JT, then HE will be asked form government, and JT will have to hold HIS nose and support for the period, 2 years or whatever.

It will works similarly if Harper does NOT get the plurality. JT (or Mulcair...whoever has the plurality ) will get support the other (who may be holding his nose), and Harper will be out.

For Harper to make a government, he will have to get a majority...

Okay, that's speculation, but that's what makes it fun.

...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Similar Content

    • By Hussain
      Im currently a grade 12 student who started an Initiative to Inform Youth about Politics and World Issues. 
      I started this podcast in the summer of 2019 after seeing the lack of attention being given to the Canadain  election of 2019. My older friends were not voting, and if they were voting, they voted without the proper knowledge. That led me to create this podcast where I try to inform the youth about world issues and politics, and hopefully encourage them to vote. 
      CHECK IT OUT HERE & TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK
       
    • By Hussain
      Can you ever imagine a country like Canada not having clean drinking water? In the 1970s the Canadain government promised to bring clean drinking water to all of Canada. Now in 2020 100% of cities of clean drinking water and 99% of rural areas have clean drinking water. the 1% which is missing is the Indigenous reserves. People living on the reserves don't have access to clean drinking water. They are poorly funded. Now the question of what would the Canadian government do if Toronto had no cleaning drinking water?
      BTW if you guys want to know more about me and my youtube channel check it out. I interview high profile politicians including Former PMs and MPs and Senators. 
       
    • By Scott Mayers
      If anyone has seen or heard what I've written or spoken, you'd know that I have an issue against Multiculturalism here in Canada since I disagree with ANY cultural type laws because they ALWAYS lead to some form of discrimination no matter how 'well-intentioned' it could be.
      All parties here support culture because those WITH culture always have more intense interest to be actively participant in politics, especially where their concerns are stronger. Those cultural groups who have the 'normal' power presently, prefer conservative politics because it preserves their cultural interests best. In contrast, those cultural groups who have less present power, can't compete in isolation and so require giving leniency towards other groups in similar 'weakness' if only to get the power through collective cultural coalitions.
      This does not mean that any of each of these cultural groups lacks 'conservative' interests. I've called the interest of those who most prefer some cultural interest WITH one's associative inheritances, "Nationalism", since this collectively covers the idea that they FAVOR some aspect of conserving one's ethnic beliefs, not simply culture per se. That is, with respect to culture, a Nationalist is one who favors at least SOME form of ethnic preservation in opposition to contemporary PROGRESSIVE cultures in which people voluntarily form or opt into without concern for any ethnic bias. As such, ALL parties of any political persuasion will inevitably have Nationalists among them.
      So what do we do if we believe we are 'free' to choose our culture but all parties in politics tend to be some force against this? If you are 'white', this accidental inheritance tends to be favored by our present conservatives where they are more predominantly 'white'. In contrast, the more non-conservative interests tends towards favoring those Nationalist groups who are most in opposition to those who ARE 'white', even if those parties do not necessarily intend this bias. This is because for the collective Nationalists disenfranchised, they lack the essential compassion to favor those they intrinsically believe are defaulted to be favored regardless of any potential flaw in this thinking. Any compassion threatens their own purposes where they interpret the nature of others to prefer the same KIND of Nationalistic thinking they intrinsically hold 'true' of themselves.
      It makes it difficult for those of us without Nationalistic interests but belong to some group of which those Nationalists of one side of the political spectrum interpret us to belong to.
      Given that I'm social democratic in principle, my preference is to vote NDP here in Saskatchewan in our upcoming election. But what I DO fear is that should this party become empowered, all the collective Nationalists among them will likely push for laws that will tend to posit special laws that empower their groups and in such a way that also prevents at least some groups from having the same privilege. Such laws are often proposed to only appear to FAVOR some in-group rather than to NEGATE some out-group. The problem is that this WILL occur in such a way that ALWAYS discriminates. Also, while it is relatively 'true' that at present our 'white' cultural Nationalists will continue to foster favor for those who are 'white', the ones who are white who are NOT Nationalists and NOT with power in fact, will be the only ones who lose to any Multicultural laws. That is, if one is white AND supports present liberalisms (NDP or Liberal party), those of us who do not belong to the Nationalists of most interest in these parties will become the sacrifices.
      It is this reasonable fear which makes those of us to be most confused at who to vote for. If we vote for what we believe, we are doomed as sacrificial lambs FOR those Nationalists in a majority there. And if we vote for the present conservative mono-cultural parties, or, as with the Liberals, a small subset of specific groups, we lose in that we don't get what we want, BUT we at least don't also get sacrificed or harmed the more 'white' we are and the more mono-culturally favorable parties favoring 'whites'.
      Conservatives are not necessarily biased in principle either by many. In fact, the ones who ARE of the present 'non-white' status who also favor the more capitalistic ideals of the right-wing parties ALSO have a similar problem but in reverse. This makes non-whites at present who are preferentially leaning to the right damned too regardless of how they vote. These particular non-whites though will more likely be at least more economically 'safe' as this is usually why ones tend to favor capitalistic economic liberal views with priority.
      Given these facts, the sacrifices of ones who are white and more liberal, will still be potentially penalized for voting more left-wing, in a worse way than those non-whites sacrificing who opt to favor non-liberal party views. What are we then supposed to do?
      I hope at least you could see why I'm so adamantly against Nationalism. But I believe that our NDP, while still likely to have more Nationalists against whites, the nature of multiple groups competing will have a better means to defeat the Nationalists of any parties. This is because those of us disenfranchised still have a potential to at least overcome the biases against us by exposing the logic I'm presenting here. I DO NOT believe in creating another posited group FOR some 'whiteness' as this only amplifies (or feedbacks) the very causes of Nationalism that threaten all of us in a renewed cycle of social abuses.
      So I believe our best chances are to still vote for NDP if we favor more liberal beliefs. But we also need to be clear to also vocalize this concern I present very LOUDLY! We need people of all backgrounds who believe in sincere PROGRESSIVE views, to make a stance against ANY form of Nationalisms and also in a way that doesn't foster FAVOR FOR ethnic preservation. "Ethnicity" is the combined connection of one's genetic as well as cultural inheritances. I am not against one choosing culture. But if one believes one's ethnicity entitles them to some kind of 'ownership' right in law because of this accidental factor, it IS Nationalism, even if they don't or won't acknowledge it.
      Let's fight to defeat Nationalistic views regardless of which political persuasion you hold based on economics. But, we have the best chance to be successful if we favor the NDP for those of us voting in the upcoming elections since right-wing parties have a natural tendency to foster Nationalism with more fervor. It is in the nature of "conservatives" to do whatever it takes to conserve the ethnicity of the majority to the extreme when those Nationalists among them are most empowered to make this happen. And don't be fooled by our Liberal party's apparent modesty to be partially kinder. Their favor is for a Catholic (Anglican or French-Roman) Nationalism of our founding established powers and their acceptance of other groups is limited to the ones which most enables them to keep power and distribute their past faults they 'own' among the general population instead. So they attempt to foster Nationalisms of targeted disenfranchised groups sufficient for their more 'liberal' ethnic, but biased interests.
      Thank you.
      Scott.
    • By Exegesisme
      How About Merging NDP and Green?​
      By Exegesisme
      What does new democracy mean? To my observation, NDP shows nothing new about democracy. NDP needs to make the meaning of its name real to Canadian people. New democracy, should not be just two words in the name of NDP, but means something our Canadian people hope for, our Canadian people want to work for, and so, our Canadian people want to vote for.
      The actual meaning of the words new democracy, is something in my mind the people ask for in their future. If it is only something they ask for in their past, such thing certainly is not new. So, new democracy, first should have the ability to predict what Canadian people need in their future. In my knowledge, nothing is more important than environment in human future, so is in past, so is at now, and so is in future. However, only in future, the people realize this more clearly than any other time.
      The demand to live in a good environment will become the first desire for all peoples, I believe so do Canadian people, then new democracy and green mean the same, and the two parties share the same value. Therefore, why not they do merge together? After merging, they need a new name, environmental humanism party. A new party represents a new philosophy, leads Canadian people live an environmental humanism life. What's your opinion?
  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...