Canadian Election 2019

[Don Vito Corleone]

The Bloc says it will not take part in formal coalition or alliance. Will give support piece by piece, bill by bill.

So neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could rely on their support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would mean that either the Conservatives or Liberals+NDP would need to get 170, right?

[MaxQue]

The Bloc says it will not take part in formal coalition or alliance. Will give support piece by piece, bill by bill.

So neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could rely on their support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would mean that either the Conservatives or Liberals+NDP would need to get 170, right?

No, it could also mean a minority government carrying business without a deal and just negociating every bill (like in 2004-2011).

[Lord Halifax]

The Bloc says it will not take part in formal coalition or alliance. Will give support piece by piece, bill by bill.

So neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could rely on their support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would mean that either the Conservatives or Liberals+NDP would need to get 170, right?

No, it could also mean a minority government carrying business without a deal and just negociating every bill (like in 2004-2011).

But who gets to be PM if neither side has a majority and the Bloc stays neutral?

[MaxQue]

The Bloc says it will not take part in formal coalition or alliance. Will give support piece by piece, bill by bill.

So neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could rely on their support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would mean that either the Conservatives or Liberals+NDP would need to get 170, right?

No, it could also mean a minority government carrying business without a deal and just negociating every bill (like in 2004-2011).

But who gets to be PM if neither side has a majority and the Bloc stays neutral?

Trudeau gets the first shot as incumbent, so he either forfeits it to the Conservatives and present a Throne's Speech (where Bloc will have a take a decision (which may be abstention)).

[Lord Halifax]

The Bloc says it will not take part in formal coalition or alliance. Will give support piece by piece, bill by bill.

So neither the Liberals or the Conservatives could rely on their support? Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would mean that either the Conservatives or Liberals+NDP would need to get 170, right?

No, it could also mean a minority government carrying business without a deal and just negociating every bill (like in 2004-2011).

But who gets to be PM if neither side has a majority and the Bloc stays neutral?

Trudeau gets the first shot as incumbent, so he either forfeits it to the Conservatives and or present a Throne's Speech (where Bloc will have a take a decision (which may be abstention)).

Is abstention the most likely?

[Poirot]

Even if the Bloc doesn't want to take part in government, I imagine it would have to take a side if two parties want to be government. Abstaining is like giving up any influence on policy. Likely each party would try to put elements pleasing the Bloc in a throne's speech proposal. 

[136or142]

I haven’t been following the campaign too closely but why is the Bloc doing so well now?

Good debate performance, and the Libs sliding in general. So their support might be a bit of a temporary bump, one that results in an underpreformance come election day.

Also, running as 'only there to defend Quebec's interests' seems to be popular for many as opposed to voting for a national party.  This seems to be especially true regarding Bill C-21 and the environment.  The Liberals are offside on Bill C-21 and 'they bought a pipeline', The Conservatives are offside on the environment, the NDP leader Jagmeet Singh wears a turban and, I guess, the Green Party just didn't catch on.

A National Post article mentioned that the B.Q is also running making Alberta into the new Quebec enemy now that separatism/federalism has declined.  I don't know if that is really is a big issue in Quebec, but I thought the article would be a hatchet job on Quebers, but it pointed out that Jason Kenney and the UCP stoked the fires on this initially be bashing Quebec interests over equalization, the Energy East Pipeline and dealing with climate change/global warming.  

(I personally feel that the Energy East Pipeline is in Quebec's interests, but that's neither here nor there.  The majority of the people of Quebec clearly don't agree.)

[136or142]

I wonder if the NDP can sustain their growth beyond a solid 20% this election..

I think we'll see whether the poor NDP organization before the campaign started in terms of lack of fundraising and slowness in nominating candidates will end up hurting them. 

[Hatman 🍁]

A lack of wanting to make a deal with the separatists by the Liberals/NDP is a big reason why the Conservatives were able to get away with governing with a minority from 2006 to 2011. As soon as a coalition was proposed with the support of the Bloc, the idea fell on its face. If Cons+BQ > Lib+NDP+Green, then I'd imagine the Conservatives would 'win' and govern with a minority, throwing bones to Quebec along the way. We'd be back at the polls in 2 years.

[DL]

So you are saying that it’s OK for the Tories to govern with the “separatists” (sic.) but if the Liberals and NDP do it everyone shrieks “treason”. Why the double standard?

[adma]

I wonder if the NDP can sustain their growth beyond a solid 20% this election..

I think we'll see whether the poor NDP organization before the campaign started in terms of lack of fundraising and slowness in nominating candidates will end up hurting them. 

This morning's Nanos shows mild portent of such a glass-ceiling "sobering up"; the NDP back down from 19.7 to 19.2, the Libs back ahead at 32.3 from 31.5 (the Cons from 32.3 to 32.1, the Bloc and Greens down and up respectively by .3).  Also wonder how much of that is a Justin-security-threat "sympathy bump"; but still, it's a sign that the Liberal free-fall isn't necessarily infinite...

[Thomas D]

I feel like we've seen this before.  Progressive voters flirt with voting Green/NDP. Then they see the Cons. might actually win. Then they vote Lib. 

[Polkergeist]

Scheer becomes PM if he can muster the numbers to vote down a Liberal Throne Speech or carry a no confidence motion.

In the Canadian convention, minor parties seem to avoid voting in these votes straight after an election.

It seems that only the NDP has committed to voting to keep the Conservatives out in such votes.

The Greens and Bloc have said that will work bill by bill with no deals of coalitions. This implies their MPs will not vote in a throne speech vote or no confidence motion.

Therefore if Con>Lib, but Lib+NDP>Con, Trudeau could try to stay in office, even if Lib+NDP<170.

[Hatman 🍁]

So you are saying that it’s OK for the Tories to govern with the “separatists” (sic.) but if the Liberals and NDP do it everyone shrieks “treason”. Why the double standard?

It's not a double standard, it's about the number of seats. I wasn't clear about this in my last post, but who ever "wins the most seats" will be treated as "the winner".

If the Liberals win more seats than the Conservatives, they probably wouldn't need the Bloc's support, because they would have the NDP/Greens to rely on. If not, then yes the would need the Bloc too. All this to say, if the Bloc is the balance of power, the party with the most seats will probably form government.

[Hatman 🍁]

I wonder if the NDP can sustain their growth beyond a solid 20% this election..

I think we'll see whether the poor NDP organization before the campaign started in terms of lack of fundraising and slowness in nominating candidates will end up hurting them. 

This morning's Nanos shows mild portent of such a glass-ceiling "sobering up"; the NDP back down from 19.7 to 19.2, the Libs back ahead at 32.3 from 31.5 (the Cons from 32.3 to 32.1, the Bloc and Greens down and up respectively by .3).  Also wonder how much of that is a Justin-security-threat "sympathy bump"; but still, it's a sign that the Liberal free-fall isn't necessarily infinite...

Not sure if I would put that much faith into polling from Thanksgiving Sunday.

[Polkergeist]

who ever "wins the most seats" will be treated as "the winner".

This is an important consideration for Trudeau, if he wishes to stay in office if Con>Lib, but Lib+NDP>Con.

He may judge that the Libs would take too much of a hit a subsequent election in such a situation, especially if Lib+NDP<170, and a new election could very well be sooner rather than later.

[King of Kensington]

How much of Singh's support coming from the "metropolitan left" vs. the traditional blue collar NDP electorate? 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would be more interested to see whether he can boost the party with what we might call a non-traditional blue collar electorate. Brampton et al being very working class by any definition that makes sense in 2019.

[King of Kensington]

Yes, Brampton is (after Oshawa) the most "working class" municipality in the GTA.

[DL]

So you are saying that it’s OK for the Tories to govern with the “separatists” (sic.) but if the Liberals and NDP do it everyone shrieks “treason”. Why the double standard?

It's not a double standard, it's about the number of seats. I wasn't clear about this in my last post, but who ever "wins the most seats" will be treated as "the winner".

And yet in the BC 2017 election the Liberals took two seats more than the NDP and when the NDP turned the tables on Christy Clarke and formed a minority government with support for the Greens - all these pundits shrieked bloody murder because the second place "loser" party was taking power and  everyone predicted that the Horgan government would have no legitimacy and wouldnt last two months...well two and a half years later the BC NDP is still in power and seems reasonably popular and no one seems to care that they actually have fewer seats than the BC Liberals. Similarly when the Ontario Liberals under David Peterson took power in 1985 despite having fewer seats than the PCs, they became very popular and won the next election in a landslide.

[Hatman 🍁]

So you are saying that it’s OK for the Tories to govern with the “separatists” (sic.) but if the Liberals and NDP do it everyone shrieks “treason”. Why the double standard?

It's not a double standard, it's about the number of seats. I wasn't clear about this in my last post, but who ever "wins the most seats" will be treated as "the winner".

And yet in the BC 2017 election the Liberals took two seats more than the NDP and when the NDP turned the tables on Christy Clarke and formed a minority government with support for the Greens - all these pundits shrieked bloody murder because the second place "loser" party was taking power and  everyone predicted that the Horgan government would have no legitimacy and wouldnt last two months...well two and a half years later the BC NDP is still in power and seems reasonably popular and no one seems to care that they actually have fewer seats than the BC Liberals. Similarly when the Ontario Liberals under David Peterson took power in 1985 despite having fewer seats than the PCs, they became very popular and won the next election in a landslide.

We're talking about the federal Liberals here. Do they have the courage to lead a minority government if they win fewer seats than the Tories? I wouldn't bet on it.

However, if Lib+NDP+Green = majority, then I think Trudeau will entertain continuing on as PM, even if he has fewer seats than the Tories.  But if they need the Bloc's support, then I don't think he will try it.

[DL]

We're talking about the federal Liberals here. Do they have the courage to lead a minority government if they win fewer seats than the Tories? I wouldn't bet on it.

What do you mean "do they have the courage?". For the Liberals being in power is the be all and the end all. It takes zero courage for them to stop at nothing to keep power. What would take courage would be to voluntarily let Scheer become PM without having exhausted every possibility! The worst day in power is a hundred times better than the best day in opposition. Why wouldn't they do absolutely ANYTHING to cling to power damn the torpedoes. The last time the Liberals lost their plurality in 2006, they reassured themselves that Harper would have no luck leading a minority government and that his government would collapse just like Clark's in 1979 and that the Liberals would be back within a year...ten years later Harper was still PM and the Liberals came extremely close to being killed off by the NDP. They wont let that happen again.

[DL]

No one seems to have pointed it out yet but the NDP is showing signs of life in Quebec. The Nanos daily tracking now has the NDP at 20% in Quebec and well ahead of the Tories who have 14%. With the Liberals at 30 and the BQ at 25 it could set up some three way races. An example of this is in Sherbrooke. In mid September Mainstreet did a poll there that have the Liberal a huge lead with 44% and the Ndp incumbent Pierre Luc Dusseault was a distant fourth at 12%. Now the head of Mainstreet is tweeting that they will put out a poll tomorrow in Sherbrooke showing a three way dead beat. That would represent a big recovery for Dusseault. It probably helps that the BQ candidate was exposed as a racist and had to apologize for saying that Islam is “evil”. Sherbrooke is a progressive university town that voted Quebec Solidaire last yeat

[adma]

Voted Tory in the advance poll yesterday.

I toyed with voting People's or spoiling my ballot, but my ultimately decided that Scheer and my local candidate were better fits for my views.

You didn't wait until election day? Don't you want to see your vote contribute to the maps?

What I'm finding from my social-media feed is that an *awful* lot of people are "selfie voting" in advance--sort of like a forthright declaration of a commitment to exercise their franchise, the earlier the better; and in a way that implicitly encourages others to follow suit.  And reports are that advance turnout's up 25% from last time, which I think is all about advance turnout, rather than turnout in general.  (And the phenomenon seems particularly common among the "fashionably left"; thus, some of last year's Ontario NDP landslides were even *more* landslidish in the advance polls.)

Which, of course, is hell to those of us who use the polling-map barometer--almost as if good old-fashioned voting on Election Day is becoming a Luddite anachronism a la land lines and print newspapers...

[King of Kensington]

We're talking about the federal Liberals here. Do they have the courage to lead a minority government if they win fewer seats than the Tories? I wouldn't bet on it.

What do you mean "do they have the courage?". For the Liberals being in power is the be all and the end all. It takes zero courage for them to stop at nothing to keep power. What would take courage would be to voluntarily let Scheer become PM without having exhausted every possibility! The worst day in power is a hundred times better than the best day in opposition. Why wouldn't they do absolutely ANYTHING to cling to power damn the torpedoes. The last time the Liberals lost their plurality in 2006, they reassured themselves that Harper would have no luck leading a minority government and that his government would collapse just like Clark's in 1979 and that the Liberals would be back within a year...ten years later Harper was still PM and the Liberals came extremely close to being killed off by the NDP. They wont let that happen again.

Yeah the NDP partisan talking point of "Liberals would rather let Tories govern than share any power with the NDP" isn't really true at all.