[Brandon716]

Once the NDP decided to pull their support in any coalition scenario, they would leave behind a Liberal party that would be in possession of a significant rift. That would suit the NDP's goal of gunning for the official opposition status.

Does the NDP really have that much national support? While they have support bases across the board (minus Quebec), people who traditionally vote Liberal aren't going to just jump ship permanently.

I know its tantamount to heresy for genuine Liberals to consider working with the NDP, as it is for many dippers to give into 'Liberal Swine' since they think Liberals are sellouts. I've heard all the talking points before...

The reality is that the left is split and needs to work together to gain real power. The NDP will already have unofficial coalition status in a minority Liberal win anyway, so that is irrelevant. Layton will pull the plug on a Liberal minority win any time he chooses. He already did it to Martin.

Why is a messy election where the Liberals don't have the cash to run needed right now?

 

[afransen]

Though Jean Chretien never got as high as 45%--in fact, I'm not sure if *anyone* has over the past few decades save Mulroney in '84.

40% more likely than 45%.

Chretien was facing a divided right, which paid massive dividends. His success was based more on the spread in support (usually at least 15 ppts) between his party and the Reform/CCRAP.

 

[afransen]

Its not pessimism, its what I view as the political cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost of another election where the Liberals might win a minority vs. working with the NDP.

And again, its just a point of view, I know Ignatieff has no hopes of starting the coalition back up. He's in it to campaign for a total win.

But really, what is it worth if during the next election they end up with a Liberal minority government that has to work with the NDP anyway? And what is it worth if Harper wins another minority? A majority is out of the question right now if an election is held this year. And I'm not sure with the setup of today the Liberals can recapture a majority even after several years, although its possible.

A matter of fact, I think it wouldn't be that bad if the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition pact BEFORE the election so that a majority would be possible now.

Coalitions come and go, just because they ran a coalition campaign once doesn't mean it would continue if it became unattractive or failed.

Lets face it, there are seats in the west that the Liberals will never compete in, and the NDP will never form a national government. A coalition is very suitable, its almost the natural choice.

As it stands, there is no legal precedent for Iggy to form a coalition now without a new election. Now that this Parliament has actually done some governing, it's unlikely that the GG would respond to a vote of no confidence by asking Iggy to form government.

On the other hand, I'm starting to think that perhaps a majority is not so unlikely after all. Not because of any inherent support each party might have, but rather electoral fatigue. If we go to the polls during the summer, that will be the fourth election in 5 years. Perhaps people will hold their nose and vote for the guys who look like they're going to win, just to give someone a mandate.

 

[jade_lee]

A Liberal mandate please!

 

[adma]

Chretien was facing a divided right, which paid massive dividends. His success was based more on the spread in support (usually at least 15 ppts) between his party and the Reform/CCRAP.

But even pre-Chretien/pre-divided-right, 40% was the commonly held threshold between likely minority and likely majority--though yes, the Liberals lost with 40% and more votes than the Tories in 1979.

Besides, a lot of this depends less on raw percentage than vote distribution--a reason why Trudeau lost with such a hefty share in '79 is because the Liberals at the time had an outsize "wasted" advantage over the Tories in Quebec. It was the marginals elsewhere that gave Joe Clark his minority.

Indeed, there's a realistic possibility that the "wasted advantage"--substitute Alberta for Quebec--could work against *Harper* this time, as Iggy scoops up more marginal seats en route to, perhaps, a Chretien-level majority. (And the key to that remains Quebec, where I still feel Iggy has more "reach" than many pundits are supposing.)

And another little thing that, by default, helps make a majority at 40% realistic: the heightened share by the (presumably) non-seat-winning Green Party. (It's a prime reason why, provincially, Dalton McGuinty more or less held his seat numbers in '07 even while dropping from 46% to 42%.)

 

[adma]

Does the NDP really have that much national support? While they have support bases across the board (minus Quebec), people who traditionally vote Liberal aren't going to just jump ship permanently.

Though there's a bit of Layton/Mulcair smoke & mirrors involved, I don't think "minus Quebec" pertains the way it used to for the NDP--at least, little more than "minus Alberta" (or at least, "minus non-Edmonton Alberta") for the Liberals. That said, I wouldn't absolutely count on any more Quebec seats for the party, especially if most of their efforts are expended upon saving Mulcair...

 

[unimaginative2]

But even pre-Chretien/pre-divided-right, 40% was the commonly held threshold between likely minority and likely majority--though yes, the Liberals lost with 40% and more votes than the Tories in 1979.

Besides, a lot of this depends less on raw percentage than vote distribution--a reason why Trudeau lost with such a hefty share in '79 is because the Liberals at the time had an outsize "wasted" advantage over the Tories in Quebec. It was the marginals elsewhere that gave Joe Clark his minority.

Indeed, there's a realistic possibility that the "wasted advantage"--substitute Alberta for Quebec--could work against *Harper* this time, as Iggy scoops up more marginal seats en route to, perhaps, a Chretien-level majority. (And the key to that remains Quebec, where I still feel Iggy has more "reach" than many pundits are supposing.)

And another little thing that, by default, helps make a majority at 40% realistic: the heightened share by the (presumably) non-seat-winning Green Party. (It's a prime reason why, provincially, Dalton McGuinty more or less held his seat numbers in '07 even while dropping from 46% to 42%.)

I completely agree, Adma. I think the Liberals would win a comfortable majority with 40%. With a little luck, they could probably pull one off with about 38% if the bounces go their way. The key to a majority is Southwestern Ontario and francophone Quebec. I agree with you that Iggy has a lot of potential in Quebec, and if he could really break in to the francophone areas, as the polls are suggesting, he could pile up a whole bunch of seats. If he can win the Kitchener-Conestogas and Sarnias of the world, a majority is pretty much assured. It's all a matter of making sure the NDP vote doesn't get too high. Even in a majority situation, I'd be surprised if they picked up more than one in Alberta. If I were them, I'd throw everything at Fort McMurray-Athabasca. It's a long shot, but if you had a strong candidate (maybe native...or even Newfie expat!) and a good organization that can really get the vote out, I think it's as winnable as any other seat in the province. And the symbolism would be fantastic. Other than that, though, I think the Liberals would do best to focus on the areas where they can really win big. As I said, the top two are Southwestern Ontario and the friendlier bits of francophone Quebec, plus Northern Ontario. After that, there's Winnipeg and the lower mainland. The Liberal vote in BC goes up without fail when they run an anglophone candidate.

 

[afransen]

But even pre-Chretien/pre-divided-right, 40% was the commonly held threshold between likely minority and likely majority--though yes, the Liberals lost with 40% and more votes than the Tories in 1979.

Besides, a lot of this depends less on raw percentage than vote distribution--a reason why Trudeau lost with such a hefty share in '79 is because the Liberals at the time had an outsize "wasted" advantage over the Tories in Quebec. It was the marginals elsewhere that gave Joe Clark his minority.

Indeed, there's a realistic possibility that the "wasted advantage"--substitute Alberta for Quebec--could work against *Harper* this time, as Iggy scoops up more marginal seats en route to, perhaps, a Chretien-level majority. (And the key to that remains Quebec, where I still feel Iggy has more "reach" than many pundits are supposing.)

And another little thing that, by default, helps make a majority at 40% realistic: the heightened share by the (presumably) non-seat-winning Green Party. (It's a prime reason why, provincially, Dalton McGuinty more or less held his seat numbers in '07 even while dropping from 46% to 42%.)

Pre-Chretien was also pre-Bloc. With the Bloc in play, between 10 and 15% of seats can't go toward a majority, which means you need up to 59% of the rest of the seats of get a majority. I can't see any Chretien-style majorities without a party having support well into the 40s ppts or the opposition collapsing to mid twenties support.

 

[unimaginative2]

Chretien won his 1997 majority with 38.4%.

One of the features I like about our system is that it rewards parties for having a broad base of support. For example, the Tories are at a disadvantage these days with their overwhelming concentration of support in Alberta and the rural West. In Trudeau's era, the Liberals suffered from their super-majorities in Quebec. It encourages a party to appeal to all regions.

 

[adma]

IEven in a majority situation, I'd be surprised if they picked up more than one in Alberta. If I were them, I'd throw everything at Fort McMurray-Athabasca. It's a long shot, but if you had a strong candidate (maybe native...or even Newfie expat!) and a good organization that can really get the vote out, I think it's as winnable as any other seat in the province. And the symbolism would be fantastic.

I'm supposing that would *really* be a long shot, at least until future redistribution allows for seat more focussed upon Fort McMurray proper. (Maybe in more of a byelection than election situation?)

My bet would be more upon the Grits gunning for Landslide Annie's former Edmonton Centre bulwark (plus more Edmonton collateral, though the NDP's stiff competition), and perhaps even a takedown of Lee Richardson and/or Rob Anders in Calgary. You gotta start with the easy stuff, ya know...

 

[adma]

Pre-Chretien was also pre-Bloc. With the Bloc in play, between 10 and 15% of seats can't go toward a majority, which means you need up to 59% of the rest of the seats of get a majority.

But again, who says Bloc support is eternally firm and guaranteed? Consider that a lot of that vote might happen to be "parked" for lack of a palatable alternative--and that even as a non-Quebecker, a cosmopolitan figure such as Ignatieff might turn out more palatable (and in a weird way, more Mulroney/Bouchard-like) to erstwhile BQ-voters than either Turner or Chretien or Martin or Dion were.

Oh, barring catastrophe, the Bloc will probably hold a good deal of its base in its Duceppe-ish left-leaning urban strongholds as well as the suburban "450", places where the provincial PQ have mostly held firm over the past three or more decades. But by that time, we might see it settle into being, at best, a more benign Creditiste-like parliamentary entity--perhaps with the added symbolic blow of falling back behind the NDP in seat totals...

 

[unimaginative2]

I'm supposing that would *really* be a long shot, at least until future redistribution allows for seat more focussed upon Fort McMurray proper. (Maybe in more of a byelection than election situation?)

I think redistribution would actually be a negative. If a Liberal could pull off a Gary Merasty-level campaign in the reserves and run a good ground campaign in the city itself pulling Liberal voters, the generally low turnout could put them over the top.

 

[afransen]

Chretien won his 1997 majority with 38.4%.

One of the features I like about our system is that it rewards parties for having a broad base of support. For example, the Tories are at a disadvantage these days with their overwhelming concentration of support in Alberta and the rural West. In Trudeau's era, the Liberals suffered from their super-majorities in Quebec. It encourages a party to appeal to all regions.

And the vote was split between the PCs and Reform. Chretien would not have won a majority if you were to go back and add the votes together--he might well have lost. This is precisely my point.

 

[kEiThZ]

I would suggest that we will see more Liberals get elected in Alberta at the next federal election simply because of the growing dissatisfaction with the provincial Conservatives. Voters are probably not pissed off enough to send Stelmach and his crew packing, but I don't think they'd mind jabbing Harper in the eye to send Stelmach a message.

 

[unimaginative2]

You'd think that they would, but Albertans seem to go on autopilot whenever they enter the voting booth. They seemed furious with Stelmach during the last campaign, so what do they do? Give him an increased majority. Harper is a favourite son in Alberta, so I don't think the Liberals have much of a chance of making inroads. Edmontonians are "real" Albertans, despite what Harper says ("You’ve got to remember that west of Winnipeg the ridings the Liberals hold are dominated by people who are either recent Asian immigrants or recent migrants from eastern Canada: people who live in ghettoes and who are not integrated into western Canadian society." That's why I think there's more opportunity in a place like Fort McMurray. It's packed with expats from the Maritimes and other places who clearly aren't as closely integrated into Alberta society. The key is just getting them out to vote.

Afransen, you're absolutely right that it would have been a minority in 1997, though probably not a loss for Chretien. Still, it's not as simple as adding up the vote. In their fairly successful last election, the Conservatives still didn't manage to match the combined Alliance/PC total in 2000.