Canadian federal election - 2015

[mileslunn]

Coop maybe, no more than that. We've only had one formal coalition - which ended apocalyptically for everyone involved and nearly the country.

But that's not the case everywhere. BC has arguably had a coalition government for the last 14 years and had an formal one in the 1940s and 1950s, which was a very productive time (though it also ended terribly for both parties involved, for other reasons)

By "other reasons" do you mean that the Socreds showed up or do you mean something else?

Basically in BC politics ever since the CCF emerged in 1933, the goal has been to keep the socialist hordes out of power.  From 1941-1952 the Liberals and Conservatives formed a coalition for that reason, while from 1952-1991 the two parties largely died off and the Social Credit emerged is the dominate party to vote for if you wanted to keep the NDP out of power.  After the disaster in 1991 the coalition fell apart, but by 1996 and going forward the BC Liberals more or less took on the same role as the Social Credit used to. 

And its largely worked as only 13 of the last 82 years were the NDP able to win.  The Liberals generally got around 20% while WAC Bennett was premier while NDP around 33% and Social Credit around 40%.  In 1972, the NDP climbed to the high 30s while the Progressive Conservatives with a youthful leader jumped to 11% and most of that came at the expense of the Social Credit.  In 1975, both the Liberals and PCs plunged again in support as they swung behind the Social Credit and in fact the NDP vote actually went up slightly in 1975 despite losing.  In 1991 the Social Credit plunged in support and most went to the BC Liberals (who at that time were more centrist like the federal Liberals) and the NDP won despite a slight drop in the popular vote.  In 1996 the BC Liberals picked up most of the Social Credit support, but just under 10% went to the BC Reform Party thus allowing the NDP to narrowly win again.  In 2001 they collapsed while in 2005 they came back and did better than either 1991 or 1996 but since the anti-NDP vote was united behind the BC Liberals they were unable to unseat them in the following three elections.

[mileslunn]

In terms of a coalition post 2015 election, if the Liberals or NDP win a plurality of seats, there will be no coalition, they will govern on an issue by issue basis never mind I doubt the Tories will be too eager to bring them down until they have a new leader in place.  If the Tories win a minority, it will depend on how close it is.  If they narrowly win or if they win the most seats but lose the popular vote, I could see either an informal arrangement like Ontario had under Peterson from 1985-1987 or a formal coalition.  However if the Tories fall just shy of a majority and win by a substantial margin, I doubt they will pull it off.  Also if Harper promises to step down, they will probably want to give the new leader a chance first before trying anything.

[Citizen Hats]

Coop maybe, no more than that. We've only had one formal coalition - which ended apocalyptically for everyone involved and nearly the country.

But that's not the case everywhere. BC has arguably had a coalition government for the last 14 years and had an formal one in the 1940s and 1950s, which was a very productive time (though it also ended terribly for both parties involved, for other reasons)

By "other reasons" do you mean that the Socreds showed up or do you mean something else?

the 1952-1972 Socreds weren't really a coalition. They were conservative/populist, the Liberals regularly pulled 20% of the vote, and they seem to have had a certain party tribal solidarity that proper political parties do and that the BC Liberals do not.   The Post 1972 Socreds were much more coalition-y, absorbing the MLAs of the PC and Liberal Parties to the extent that Bill Bennett's first cabinet was majority composed of former Liberals and Tories rather than Socreds.  The BC Liberals, especially given that there are a lot more Liberals in BC than there were in the 1980s, are much more like this iteration of the Socreds than the previous one, a soulless coalition party rather than a thing itself

[mileslunn]

Coop maybe, no more than that. We've only had one formal coalition - which ended apocalyptically for everyone involved and nearly the country.

But that's not the case everywhere. BC has arguably had a coalition government for the last 14 years and had an formal one in the 1940s and 1950s, which was a very productive time (though it


By "other reasons" do you mean that the Socreds showed up or do you mean something else?

also ended terribly for both parties involved, for other reasons)

the 1952-1972 Socreds weren't really a coalition. They were conservative/populist, the Liberals regularly pulled 20% of the vote, and they seem to have had a certain party tribal solidarity that proper political parties do and that the BC Liberals do not.   The Post 1972 Socreds were much more coalition-y, absorbing the MLAs of the PC and Liberal Parties to the extent that Bill Bennett's first cabinet was majority composed of former Liberals and Tories rather than Socreds.  The BC Liberals, especially given that there are a lot more Liberals in BC than there were in the 1980s, are much more like this iteration of the Socreds than the previous one, a soulless coalition party rather than a thing itself

True each one was different although I would argue the Social Credit post 1972 had to change as the NDP used to only get around 33% as opposed to 40% so they needed to absorb some of the Liberals.  More importantly it seems the Liberal vote more or less split with the Blue Liberals going over to the Social Credit and progressive Liberals to the NDP.  With the BC Liberals is much the same in many ways.  True the Liberals federally were stronger from 1993-2006 in BC, but in 2008 and especially 2011 they did even worse than the 80s so much of the support was fairly soft.  The unpopularity of the provincial NDP government as well as the fact many especially in the Lower Mainland found the Reform Party too extreme and the PCs were pretty much non-existent in BC was partially a reason they did better.  Now I can easily see them coming back, but not so much because BC has a strong Liberal base but rather for those sick and tired of the Conservatives federally, the Liberals are less of a jump than going over to the NDP while many in the NDP want to see Harper defeated and will vote for whichever party is most likely to achieve this (and many pay attention more to national than local numbers).  The BC Liberals may include more open federal Liberals, but outside the Lower Mainland, I suspect most of its membership voted Conservative in the last federal election (the Liberals were in single digits in most non-Lower Mainland ridings), although many might have voted Liberal between 1993-2006.

[Citizen Hats]

The thing is that there's actually a lot of Liberal Activists in BC. Just proportionately fewer voters. This plays as much into the BC Liberals, were you find surprising numbers of LPC members in places you would least expect.

[DL]

Actually there has been a much more recent example of a coalition government in Canada that everyone seems to forget and its actually quite recent. It was in Saskatchewan from 1999 to 2003. On election night the NDP lost its majority and ended up with 29 seats, the Sask Party got 26 seats (and actually narrowly beat the NDP in the popular vote) and the Liberals took 3 seats. The NDP and the Saskatchewan Liberals negotiated a formal coalition that even gave the three Liberals MLAs cabinet portfolios. The NDP side of the negotiations was led by none other than Brian Topp who went on to negotiate the Liberal/NDP coalition of 2008 that Ignatieff turned up his nose to.

That coalition survived a full four years. The Saskatchewan Liberal party also fell apart and the three Liberal MLAs all ran as New Democrats in 2003 when the NDP regained its majority!

Coop maybe, no more than that. We've only had one formal coalition - which ended apocalyptically for everyone involved and nearly the country.

But that's not the case everywhere. BC has arguably had a coalition government for the last 14 years and had an formal one in the 1940s and 1950s, which was a very productive time (though it also ended terribly for both parties involved, for other reasons)

[Citizen Hats]

so really what we're saying hear is that most Canadian coalitions result badly for at least one party?

[RogueBeaver]

Yes. The Manitoba and BC coalitions for one. Here in QC we had Mercier's Parti National, but that was basically a renamed PLQ as Mercier's personal outfit with some dissident Tories. UN was supposed to be a coalition... hahaha.

[DL]

so really what we're saying hear is that most Canadian coalitions result badly for at least one party?

Hard to say - we have little experience with coalitions between parties with similar (or close to similar) strength. If you look at the UK example, the coalition there has results in over half of Lib Dem voters deserting to the Labour party. In Europe the usual pattern is for coalition governments to be very bad in the next election for whichever party is the "junior" partner - what would happen in Canada if there was a hypothetical NDP/Liberal coalition is anyone's guess.

[adma]

what would happen in Canada if there was a hypothetical NDP/Liberal coalition is anyone's guess.

Closest hint might be the NDP propping up the 1972 Liberal minority--and then having its seat total halved in 1974...

[DL]

but then the NDP propped up the Liberal minority 2004-2006 and went in to GAIN seats in the 2006 election so who knows

[Citizen Hats]

ya, but there were a lot of things dragging down the Liberals in that one

[DL]

ok another example, the NDP and the Liberals had an accord in Ontario 1985-1987 in the 1987 election both the Liberals AND the NDP gained vote share and though the NDP lost a couple of seats it did become the official opposition supplanting the PCs.

[Hatman 🍁]

"Coalition" is a dirty word in Canadian politics, and I don't think you will ever see it again, except in the case of a national crisis of some sort. Coalitions are disastrous for the junior partner in Westminster systems, if the UK is any indication.

[DC Al Fine]

"Coalition" is a dirty word in Canadian politics, and I don't think you will ever see it again, except in the case of a national crisis of some sort. Coalitions are disastrous for the junior partner in Westminster systems, if the UK is any indication.

All of the crap from being a government party, but with none of the prestige/major legislative achievements.

Makes you wonder what the Lib/NDP/BQ coalition would have resulted in. I'm guessing the Liberals & Bloc would've been ok, but the NDP would get screwed.

[DL]

"Coalition" is a dirty word in Canadian politics, and I don't think you will ever see it again, except in the case of a national crisis of some sort. Coalitions are disastrous for the junior partner in Westminster systems, if the UK is any indication.

What makes you say that? I have not seen any polling data since January of 2009 on what Canadians would think of a coalition between the NDP and Liberals where each party gets a share of cabinet portfolios. I think the public's reaction to that idea may be a lot more positive than you think.

[Hatman 🍁]

"Coalition" is a dirty word in Canadian politics, and I don't think you will ever see it again, except in the case of a national crisis of some sort. Coalitions are disastrous for the junior partner in Westminster systems, if the UK is any indication.

What makes you say that? I have not seen any polling data since January of 2009 on what Canadians would think of a coalition between the NDP and Liberals where each party gets a share of cabinet portfolios. I think the public's reaction to that idea may be a lot more positive than you think.

Well, that whole period in Canadian politics certainly sullied the term. If one of the coalition partners had a plurality of the seats, the public wouldn't mind, but it would be terrible for the junior coalition partner. Of course, a simple "accord" wouldn't hurt the partner necessarily.

[DL]

In Australia every time the "right" comes to power it is always a coalition between the Liberal and National parties and somehow they each always live to fight another day!

[Hatman 🍁]

In Australia every time the "right" comes to power it is always a coalition between the Liberal and National parties and somehow they each always live to fight another day!

That's because they are essentially the same party. Plus, they don't have the same electoral system.

[DL]

There has been some talk of moving towards an Australian-style preferential voting system in Canada as well - the Liberals favour it and the NDP would likely regard it as better than the status quo...if that was brought in by an NDP/Liberal coalition government, it could lock the Tories out of power for the next century!

Its hard to say how an actual coalition might play out. If the NDP was the senior partner and Mulcair was PM it would be a win-win. If the NDP was the junior partner it could be a disaster where the party would lose its identity and the coalition would be a step towards merger or it could be good if NDP ministers established a distinct style in government and Canadians got used to the idea of NDP cabinet ministers doing a competent job.

[DC Al Fine]

There has been some talk of moving towards an Australian-style preferential voting system in Canada as well - the Liberals favour it and the NDP would likely regard it as better than the status quo...if that was brought in by an NDP/Liberal coalition government, it could lock the Tories out of power for the next century!

Political alignments don't exist in a vacumn. The right would (eventually) shift enough to the left to bring things back to 50/50.

If the NDP is going to force political reform, can they at least choose a good one like MMP?

[Hatman 🍁]

I feel like the NDP would be fairly opposed to Alternative Vote. It is after all not proportional in any way, although the results would be closer to proportionality as it would force the Tories out of power. But at the same time, it would prevent the NDP from ever winning as well. Get used to Liberal power for a long time, or at least some sort of barely right of centre conservative party. (might cause the creation of a new reform party!)

[DL]

I deally Canada would move towards a form of proportional representation, but AV would still be a vast improvement over the status quo and its hard to come up with a good reason why voters should not be given more choice. Why not be able to rank ballots?

[Citizen Hats]

I feel like the NDP would be fairly opposed to Alternative Vote. It is after all not proportional in any way, although the results would be closer to proportionality as it would force the Tories out of power. But at the same time, it would prevent the NDP from ever winning as well. Get used to Liberal power for a long time, or at least some sort of barely right of centre conservative party. (might cause the creation of a new reform party!)

it would prevent the NDP from ever winning as well?

The liberals are unpopular in enough of the country to lose second preferences


Otherwise, I don't like MMP because I don't like party-list representation, though I could be down with STV

[Hatman 🍁]

Party list is no different than what we have now: partisans choosing their candidates.

STV is probably the fairest system, but good luck explaining it to the population.