October 13, 2015

Opposition leaders willing to force an election re-do if Conservatives don't get strong majority

Brian LilleyRebel Co-Founder
 

Could Canada be back into another election just days or weeks after this current one ends? 

It could happen, quite easily. The Liberals and NDP and promising to defeat Stephen Harper and the Conservatives if they win a minority government.

Trudeau and Mulcair may be putting their own vanity ahead of the good of the country costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

JOIN TheRebel.media for more fearless news and commentary you won’t find anywhere else.

SIGN UP FREE for exclusive Election 2015 coverage from The Rebel team!

Help build The Rebel’s new studio, literally brick by brick!
LEARN MORE at BuildTheDream.ca

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2015-10-15 21:49:22 -0400
Jay Kelly – our PM called the election earlier, because he said that all parties would then be using their own money for campaigning, not the public purse. I bow to his wisdom!
commented 2015-10-15 16:33:27 -0400
Ah we will soon know who will get the most seats.keep in mind that if Harper gets the most seats or not he is still Prime Minster. And not required to open the house until next June.I think it is Harper they are not going to work with and not the party. Harper could call a leadership convention and maybe the other parties could work with them. Also the GG could have a say in what happens. It is best to wait and see what happens on the 19th.
commented 2015-10-15 16:30:16 -0400
Norberto, it was Jason Bertucci who said “Trudeau is overwhelmingly liked by Canadians”.
commented 2015-10-15 15:31:50 -0400
Jason, I don’t know Justin Trudeau, so I can’t say whether I “like” him or not. I don’t “like” most politicians – the kind of people who thrive in that profession are generally not the kind of person I get along with. In terms of his politics, I agree with some elements of the Liberal platform (like his proposal to revisit the Kelowna Accord), and disagree with others – ditto the Conservatives and the NDP. That’s probably why I seldom vote “party”, but usually candidate.
commented 2015-10-15 15:30:33 -0400
Jay you are wron because we are the majority! There is no such thing as ‘overwhelmingly’ against ‘MAJORITY’ . You have to sharpen your Canadian English! And another thing majority of people will clamor not to have another election after Conservatives wins this election because we are just wasting tyime and money just to give in to the ‘if i will not have that candy, i will cryyyyyy’ attitude. wake up and be a true Canadian that the forefathers of Canada have built for us including you!
commented 2015-10-15 15:01:55 -0400
Jason, your comment “Also, Trudeau is overwhelmingly liked by Canadians which gives him an edge” is something of an understatement.
commented 2015-10-15 14:22:55 -0400
Terry, do you honestly like that little baby Trudeau? Or is it just the Liberal Party that you are voting for?
commented 2015-10-15 14:21:05 -0400
Peter and Glenn it is better to ignore wishful thinking and prepare for reality. I have been fairly scientific about this, ignoring any polls with samples under 1500 and putting weight on the more recent polls. Based on that so far I have the Liberals at 30 and the CPC at 28 with 10 points undecided. Let’s say the CPC can get 5 of that undecided and 3 goes to the Liberals. We then have at best a tie at 33 points each. So at that with more efficient voting the CPC MAY still get a bare minority, I will concede. The problem is Trudeau is trending up and Harper is trending at stagnation. Also, Trudeau is overwhelmingly liked by Canadians which gives him an edge.

I dislike Trudeau as much as anyone here, and hate what the NDP stands for, but we are not not seeing good things in the numbers.
commented 2015-10-15 14:15:25 -0400
“The will of Parliament” is an important principle when it comes to government functioning. All of the elected members have a responsibility to serve the Canadian people. If a majority of members, from whatever party, vote to pass a piece of legislation then that is done. If the Conservatives and Bloc combined hold the majority of seats and they agree, for example, that Stephen Harper should remain as Prime Minister, then that is how it should be. If the Liberals and the NDP hold the majority of seats and they agree on who should form government, then that is how it should be. A formal coalition is more rare — during the Second World War was the last time — when two or more parties share rolews in the government, including cabinet positions.
commented 2015-10-15 13:55:58 -0400
I agree Peter, since both Trudeau and Muclair have gone on record that they refuse to work with a conservative minority, you know they will manipulate the system to seize power at the first opportunity. Should they attempt to do so it would prove that without a doubt that the Liberals and NDP care nothing about Canada or Canadians but rather it is all about power, money, and prestige (well … illusionary prestige) for them.
commented 2015-10-15 10:45:45 -0400
Even though it is legal for the opposition parties to form a coalition and take over the government, it is still “usurping” the government. It is over-riding the will of the people, because the party that has the most votes wins.

Now people may not like the political system we have (first past the post), but that is completely irrelevant because that is the system we have. Deal with it. So should the opposition forms a coalition and takes over the government, the opposition is saying by their actions that they do not respect the will of the people.

Our system of government is not two parties like in the US, it is not left vs. right when it comes to the election process itself, it is a multi party system, so it is ethically invalid to say that a coalition of all the left wing parties is the now majority. The left wing parties cannot be opposition voices one moment and then conveniently become united voice just because that lost the election to a Conservative minority.

But all that aside, the very fact that the NDP and Liberals have both stated clearly in advance that they will not work with a Conservative minority in parliament and will force another election, means that they are not willing to work with the democratic system we have, but will manipulate it to their advantage to cease power.
commented 2015-10-15 08:56:51 -0400
The numbers of those who have voted have been discussed a lot. Those who chose not to vote can be for a number of reasons, but I think that they come down to two in the end: they are comfortable enough with how their lives are going and can’t be bothered to vote (a majority, IMHO) or they will only vote for an ideologically pure candidate and there isn’t one. I think that those who are comfortable also fall into the “I won’t vote this time, that’ll teach them!” school of thought because they don’t see large enough negatives in the “wrong” party getting in – they are comfortable that their life will continued with only minor changes.

In the long term, Canada will continue regardless of who wins this election. I think that the Conservatives are the best choice because of economics, and as long as we remain relatively rich compared to other societies and cultures we can afford things like pollution controls (at the no burning dung for heat in your house level), same sex marriage discussions, and the Kardashians. The Liberals will siphon money off to their friends the way they always have, the NDP will try to find the elusive straw that breaks the camel’s back on the economy the way they always have. We live lives better than kings did 200+ years ago. I thank to all who contribute to our economy. I thank the parasites for not killing the host (yet). I hope that Conservatives win because they directly support the least number of parasites upon our economy. Being in Alberta, I’m seeing just how fast the NDP parasites can assemble.
commented 2015-10-15 07:47:30 -0400
“If that Party cannot gain the support of the House than other options have to be looked at. " That is at the base of my question Jay. Both Trudeau and Muclair have made it very clear and on record they will not work with a conservative minority. What do you propose is the answer then?

Thank you Terry. I am glad we are in agreement on the fact that all three parties must work together (not against intentionally) in a minority situation. There is always some common ground between all political stripes if one is open to discussion.
commented 2015-10-15 07:10:38 -0400
Hyacinth, I think I understand the distinction you’re talking about: you’re saying it’s not right for the Liberals and NDP to assume beforehand that the Conservatives will NOT govern as a minority government should – by acknowledging that they represent a minority of the electorate, and need to cooperate with other parties. While I think that’s a reasonable assumption, given Harper’s campaign, his conduct when he won his first minority, and his treatment of Parliament and its institutions, I agree with you that ALL parties should try to make it work.
commented 2015-10-15 03:17:24 -0400
Each of the parties has a responsibility to find a way to function and work together after an election. The Party that wins the most seats should propose to the Governor General that they can form government. If that Party cannot gain the support of the House than other options have to be looked at.
The Conservatives took a gamble by calling the longest and most expensive election in Canadian history. They have the courage to take responsibility for the outcome.
commented 2015-10-15 00:06:29 -0400
Terry, you answered but still clear as mud.
Let me clarify the question so please clarify your answer.
Both Muclair and Trudeau are on record prior to the actual election of promising not to work with a conservative minority. Therefore it is not off the mark to assume that they will bring down the gov should the election result in a conservative minority. Do you think that is a legit reason to bring down a newly elected government? To nullify those votes solely based on the fact that they are conservative and that it has nothing to do with any policy being newly presented at the new sitting of parliament? Its safe to assume no matter what is put forth they will vote against it just for the sake of keeping their promise of being uncooperative with (against) a conservative minority to bring down the newly elected government. Do you think that is reasonable, legit, or merely as you stated “politically expedient” therefore acceptable. Second part of the question is if the shoe were on the other foot would you cry foul? Imagine the exact same scenario but with a Liberal minority where the conservatives and the NDP would intentionally vote against the Liberals just for the sake of being against the Liberals and not the actual policy being newly presented in effort to bring down the newly elected government. Again, legit or not legit?
commented 2015-10-14 20:59:06 -0400
“You still haven’t answered my question if the shoe were on the other foot so it is safe to assume that you would cry foul. "
Huh??? I said that any minority government was vulnerable to any legitimate parliamentary contingency, at the hands of any party, regardless of their position on the political continuum. Sorry, I thought I made that clear.
Example. Go back a few years to when the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine an election in which Liberals win a minority, but Conservatives and Reform members between them have enough seats to bring down the Government. I would expect them to do so when they judged it politically expedient, and more power to them. Does that answer it?
commented 2015-10-14 18:56:13 -0400
I see by your “short” response that it is safe to assume that you do indeed think it is perfectly legit to nullify votes IF they are conservative votes. (Both Muclair and Trudeau are on record prior to the actual election of promising NOT TO WORK with a conservative minority.) You still haven’t answered my question if the shoe were on the other foot so it is safe to assume that you would cry foul. Sorry Terry but my first off the cuff remark stands true.
commented 2015-10-14 18:33:29 -0400
Hyacinth: so by “usurp”, you mean “use parliamentary practices legally to challenge a government supported by a minority of Canadians”. Okay, thanks.
commented 2015-10-14 18:28:25 -0400
Uh – Guy? My assertion was that a significant majority of the popular vote went to the parties of the left (read the post). Thanks for the detailed breakdown proving my point, but it really wasn’t necessary. Appreciate the backup, though.
commented 2015-10-14 18:12:42 -0400
“I’m still not clear on what “usurpation” you mean: a vote of non-confidence is simply a statement that the government does not have the confidence of Parliament to enact a measure.”

What are you unclear on? It’s very clear Terry. It is NOT simply a statement that the government does not have the confidence of Parliament.
Both Muclair and Trudeau are on record prior to the actual election of promising NOT TO WORK with a conservative minority. They have made it clear that they will “vote down” at first opportunity, they will “usurp” the electoral result at first opportunity. I fail to see what is unclear here, unless you think its ok for Trudeau and Muclair to vow to vote “non-confidence” ahead of the election (then make good on that promise at first opportunity). I was asking how you would feel if it were the other way around.

I thought I was clear on the point that all three parties should work together for the good of Canada and Canadians, but two have already made it clear they don’t want to play nice and share the sandbox with a conservative, or in other words work for the good of Canada and Canadians in joint effort.

“In the event of a Liberal minority, would you council Stephen Harper to collaborate with Justin Trudeau?

I do not feel the need to council Harper in any matter, well perhaps I’d like to have a chat about immigration, but that is not the topic here. Harper is an intelligent statesman, I have faith in him to do the correct action when necessary. I have zero faith in the other leaders because to date they have shown nothing but paltry bickering like small children in a school yard fighting over the lone toy pail and shovel in the sandbox.

One last thing, this is directed at Guy. It’s ok to forget May. I never take into account May for any political topic. She is nothing but a bitter aging woman that is far too easy with the liquor and runs her mouth off against all better judgment. She and Mary Walsh must be related they are so alike, both of them are dim bulbs on the tree of life. Its odd that one made it into politics and the other in front of a camera because both should go back to school and educate themselves before opening their mouths ever again.
commented 2015-10-14 16:52:44 -0400
Oh, I almost forgot May, she will do anything for Trudeau or Omar Khadr as well as anything that will destroy progress until we are back to starving and freezing in caves, just like Omar Khadr’s family wants.
commented 2015-10-14 16:48:25 -0400
Terry said : “In the event of a Liberal minority, would you council Stephen Harper to collaborate with Justin Trudeau?” – Absolutely! Harper is certainly the grown up out of the 5 major party leaders. Stephen Harper can be trusted to do what is best for Canada, Gilles Ducepe can be trusted to do what is good for Quebec, Mulcair will do what ever he can to get and retain power and Trudeau will only do what he has to in order to get as much as he can for himself and will petulantly disagree with anything Harper appears to want even if it is good for Canada.
commented 2015-10-14 16:41:02 -0400
Terry Rudden – Oh goody! You want to use maths! Using maths :
Popular vote
Party For Against
CPC 39.62 60.38
NDP 30.63 69.37
LPC 18.91 81.09
BQ 6.04 93.96
Green 3.91 96.09
Others 0.89 99.11
->
Obviously more people were against the NDP and LPC than were against the CPC.

Elected
Party Winners Losers
CPC 166 141 = 45.9%
NDP 103 205 = 66.6%
LPC 34 274 = 89.0%
BQ 4 71 = 94.7%
Green 1 303 = 99.7%
Others 0 285 = 0
->
Also more NDP and Liberal losers ran.

Liberals enjoyed the “first past the poll” maths when it suited them under Chretien but now they want to use other maths to steal the entitlements they feel entitled to.
You will need to go use your “Mathematics Skills” on the sheople like you who also fails Mathematics, maybe go try it on other Musics Substitute Teachers and Camp Councillors but most of them will also kick you to the curb.
commented 2015-10-14 16:37:18 -0400
Ah Terry more left wing nonsense.
commented 2015-10-14 14:45:42 -0400
“What’s your point there Terry?”
That Lilley seems to be scaremongering about the normal operation of our government. If the Conservatives get a majority by even one seat, they’ve got a majority. If they get a minority, they’re vulnerable to a non-confidence vote.
“What if it turns out to be a Liberal minority? Would they be above that vulnerability?”
Of course not.
“What of an NDP minority? Any minority government is vulnerable.”
Absolutely.
“If the outcome results in a minority government, then all three parties should, and I stress “should”, work together for the good of Canada and Canadians not against each other.”
That assumes agreement on “what is for the good of Canadians”, of course. In the event of a Liberal minority, would you council Stephen Harper to collaborate with Justin Trudeau?
“in accusations of and by all the political parties “in it for the power only”.
I’d question the word “only”. I think most politicians and parties are in it at least in part in pursuit of a political and social vision they honestly believe in. Of course, any hierarchical system that offers power will attract people who are in it for that reason.
" Would you cry foul if Harper and Muclair would unite to take over the political game or is it only alright or justifiable if it were Trudeau and Muclair joining forces to usurp the electoral results?"
I’m still not clear on what “usurpation” you mean: a vote of non-confidence is simply a statement that the government does not have the confidence of Parliament to enact a measure. Give me a scenario.
commented 2015-10-14 14:25:31 -0400
“A Conservative Minority WILL be vulnerable to a non-confidence motion, and that’s as it should be. No?”

What’s your point there Terry? What if it turns out to be a Liberal minority? Would they be above that vulnerability? What of an NDP minority? All three are possibilities depending on which poll you believe in. Any minority government is vulnerable. If the outcome results in a minority government, then all three parties should, and I stress “should”, work together for the good of Canada and Canadians not against each other. If they chose to work against each other (for whatever reason) and call a non-confidence vote then it merely lends credence to the statements that has been said in accusations of and by all the political parties “in it for the power only”.

Our current electoral system is what it is. But let me ask you Terry, how would you feel if say for example, Trudeau won a very slim minority, say 34%. For arguments sake let’s say that Harper and Muclair evenly had the remaining votes, 33 % each. Would you cry foul if Harper and Muclair would unite to take over the political game or is it only alright or justifiable if it were Trudeau and Muclair joining forces to usurp the electoral results? I would cry foul either way because that 34% now had their voices nullified. To me it would not matter if it were 34% Liberal, or 34% Conservative, or 34% NDP voices, the point would be that the 34% that won the election were then silenced.

The Liberals are left of center and have been for many years even though the older members refuse to acknowledge this change in their party’s political policies, posturing, and stance (both fed and prov). It would seem a logical evolution that the left would morph into a single entity (party) eventually just as the right did. Perhaps then we’d see a set of different dynamics for future elections. But as it stands currently it is wrong that the two parties considered left would morph into one as a coalition after losing an election if the conservatives won a minority. However if they morphed, became one party, prior to an election (say the next election after this one) that would be completely different.
commented 2015-10-14 13:41:42 -0400
Anyone else notice that when Justin Trudeau speaks he gasps in air every so often. Perhaps, this comes from his actor training on how to project and emote on stage? Justin should just throw in the towel and get his application in for Stratford next summer.
commented 2015-10-14 13:17:48 -0400
I think we’re talking apples and oranges. As far as I know (and I could be wrong), we’re not talking about a situation in which parties form a literal, post election coalition, go to the Governor General and demand to be appointed as the government. Nor am I disputing the right of a government with a popular minority but a majority of seats to form government. A Conservative majority of ANY size is a majority government, and should function as such. (Lilley’s reference to the need for a “STRONG” majority is just silly).
A Conservative Minority WILL be vulnerable to a non-confidence motion, and that’s as it should be. No?
My point was that in last federal election, roughly 60% of Canadians voted for parties you’d call “left”. Under our current system, the single right wing party won a majority, and the left were in the same position as the Reform party and Progressive Conservatives were, pre-merger. That may well happen again, and it will be interesting to see whether a third defeat prompts a structural change.
commented 2015-10-14 12:49:57 -0400
Ok, I fold Terry, I cannot resist replying (slaps fingers).

It is a “usurpation” because that was NOT presented to the populace as a viable choice prior to casting their vote. It may be legal to form a coalition, however, if it was not presented to the voters, it should not be allowed just because the losing parties want to change the end result because they did not win. Our electoral system is what it is, you cannot change the game just because you lost the game. What you are advocating is like saying, for example, let’s go back to the 2011 Ontario provincial election, when you counted the seats for Hudak (37 seats) and Horwath (17 seats) combined they would have outnumbered McGuinty’s 53 seats ergo McGuinty never should have been allowed to be Premiere because the other seats outnumbered his so rightfully either Horwath or Hudak (it would be decided between those two) should have be reigning over Ontario instead of McGuinty. Can you imagine what the outcry there would have been then? No. I reiterate, while it may be legal it is wrong to change the election outcome because you aren’t happy with whomever won, even if marginally won (pardon the pun) by the seat of his pants (a minority Gov.). Changing the end result is not a democracy.

If one advocates for a coalition because they are unhappy with the end result then I question those people with “why bother having elections at all?”. (Not happy with the result, no prob let’s overthrow it and instill our own, power to the people and all that.) If that is indeed the case then why don’t we simply have the (1%) richest people for example decide who gets to run the country, think of all the tax money that could be saved. While we are at it we might as well simply revert back to fiefdom, where the masses are nothing but common peasantry totally dependent upon the Lords and their lands for their meager existences, we could then abolish all forms of free enterprise, social assistance, and yes taxes with fiefdom (you would still have to pay taxes but differently, you would have to pay the Lord of the land that you were allowed to live on of course). Personally I’ll stick with a democratic society thank you very much.

I would rather see a minority government (regardless of which party wins) if that is the end result rather than that of a coalition of any kind that was never presented prior to voting. I do hope it will be a conservative majority though.