babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Green Party releases their platform, September 9, 2015
September 9, 2015 - 7:34pm
;
Green Party releases their platform: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-green-party-platfor...
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/platform
Looks pretty good on first glance. There is much room for the Greens and NDP to find common ground after the election.
The interview with May tonight wasn't bad. When Mansbridge asked her about her stand on various issues, the similarity with the NDP was apparent. Raise corporate taxes, drop the small business tax to 9% from 11%, bring in proportional representation, maintain the Universal Child Care benefit (rather than alter it to a means tested benefit), repeal Bill C-51.
Overall, a good platform. Despite the nonsense about running a surplus.
Mansbridge pointed out to may that her program was very similar to the other opposition parties and asked asked her why she was running angainst them.
She didn't have anything approaching a good answer.
She says in a minority she will phone the Governor General on election night and offer to broker a coalition.This is pretty suspect. Not only is the GG constitutionaly obliged only to take advice from the PM and therefore will not talk to her, May is unlikely to have any MPs except herself. Her dream of having the balance of power and brokering anything is just a fantasy.
What is not a fantasy, unfortunately, is the very real prospect that that Greens will deliver a good many seats to the Conservatives.
The GG is not constitutionally advised to take advise ONLY from the PM. Where did you hear that?
As well, there can even be a brief period where there is no PM (after resignation before new government).
The GG's constitutional obligation is to do what needs to be done to get a stable government. Talking to May could well be part of that. The GG may speak to Harper first and Harper may be unable to suggest his party given that he may well have already concluded that he has no support outside his party. Then the GG may speak to the other two large parties who may themselves provide only vague or inadequate assurances of stability given Trudeau's statements that he does not want any formal arrangement. The GG may prefer a formal arrangement or even make it a condition (which is his right given the obligation for him to see a stable government installed. He could receive very well a call from May offering to be a go-between to the NDP and Liberals.
The NDP partisans may dislike her but she has a lot of respect from MPs in the last parliament and could get a conversation going. The GG could actually have a constitutional reason to listen to her if she is the best hope of a government. A new election is an option but this is a last resort given that there would ahve just been one and a new election would offer little hope of a change. As well further delays would provide a constitutional crisis, and potential economic shocks to the country.
There is nothing inherently wrong with what May is saying. In fact as a party of only a couple seats and numercially no balance of power this is likely the biggest role she could possibly play and it makes sense for the interest of her party and her own politics that she take such an opportunity. For the country, there is no reason to presume it would be completely ineffective if the NDP and Liberals' talks were to break down -- something entirely possible. If May got an endorsement form the GG to talk to the parties informerly this would be a feather in her cap and there is no reason for her not to try for that.
The reasons for why it may not work would be:
1)if the NDP and Liberals are smart enough to talk directly (the one who refuses is likely to get blamed for a crisis)
or
2) if the Liberals and Conservatives deicde to talk (not impossible if Harper resigned right off)
or
3) The GG engage in a meeting himself with all three (I think this is quite likely if there is a deadlock -- even though there is no precident -- there is also no precident of this kind of deadlock if one occurs
or
4) One party have enough support that it leads the others such that the GG would find a case-by-case arrangment, such as what Trudeau proposes, possible.
There is one other possibility. If the parties cannot agree to any coalitions and they are too close to each other numerically there may be a consensus that any two getting together only helps the third.
If the economy is in bad shape it would not be impossible for Harper to resign and a 1-year government of all three parties be installed to bring in an emergency budget. This is not impossible as it would have lower risk for each of the parties and would simply serve to postpone a second election that likely would only return a deadlock for the period of a year.
The GG himself could propose this. The government would effectively be a caretaker government with an agenda negotiated among all three parties. This has not been discussed but if there is no stable government possible, the GG has this option if the parties agree as an alternative to a new election if the polls are deadlocked and there is little chance of a change.
Before you say this is impossible -- consider the situations of the parties. Neither the NDP nor the Liberals would want to return to an election without a year to fundraise and the Conservatives, if their government was just dumped and had no clear leadership, might want to avoid an election where things could get worse. A formal arrangement for one year among the three parties is different enough from what Trudeau has said "no" to that he could be happy with it rather than a coalition with the NDP. It could be his best way out of having to choose between the NDP and Conservatives. It limits the impact of the NDP going into government as well and that would please Trudeau.
The NDP could be in the weakest position financially of the three to go into a new election. It would be unable to work with the CPC alone and if Trudeau does not agree to a coalition may have few other choices.If Trudeau and a care-taker leader of the CPC agree to this it would be difficult for the NDP to refuse given the potential political fallout.
The Conservatives could be desperate to avoid a new election without a leader and in spite of the economic advatnage see few upsides to a new election. All three might be wary of being blamed for a new election if the economy is in turmoil. If the Conservatives are the only party (other than the BQ) to lose seats, even a full bank account may not lead them to want to return to the polls as one of the parties nobody can work with, likely some hand wringing and noises from the right wing agitating for a tilt in their direction.
Nobody is talking about a 3-party arrangment now but it is by no means impossible for a short modest care-taker government. It could well be the least bad alternative. With all three included, the the NDP and Liberals would not pay a price for participating with the Conservatives in what would be considered a resolution to a constitutional crisis and political deadlock. Nobody would love this arrangement but it has fewer downsides than a new election with two parties broke and a third without a leader.
And while this has not happened in Canada, in peacetime anyway, it has happened elsewhere. It would allow all three parties to look a little more grown up and that is not a bad thing.
The biggest reason why this might not happen would be if the Conservatives lost really badly -- then there would be less of a deadlock and perhaps a greater incentive for the NDP and Liberals to exclude them. The parties then would have less fear of a three way fight than they would if the three parties came in only a few seats apart.
What have you been smoking? If no party gets a majority, there will be a minority govenment.
The only feasible exception to this is if the Cons come first and the Liberals and NDP come to some arrangement to form a government. Neither the Liberals nor NDP would ever form an arrangement with the Cons, notwithstanding what some people on this forum might think. One need only look at first and second preferences of voters to understand this.
And anyone who thinks the Liberals and NDP would allow May some kind of role must be smoking some pretty strong stuff. Every Green vote comes at the expense of the NDP or Liberals and some ridings have been won by the Cons due to this (Yukon being the best example). It's against the interests of both parties to raise her stature.
You are missing the point-- It is legitimate for her to angle for this and certainly not unconstitutional for the GG to talk to her.
As I explained if there is a deadlock and no party can claim confidence the GG could indeeed listen to her.
The other parties may not like that but if they are not listening to each other this could go on the table.
If this simply forces the NDP and Liberals to talk (to keep her out) then it will have performed the function she wanted -- to get her some media ink and to put Harper out of office.
Now I already explained how a three party arrangment could come about -- it would require the CPC to be a in a strong position (and would not happen if they were a poor third). This is the scenario the Liberals could try to make happen if they were being pressured into a coalition with the NDP. It could buy a year for fundraising and positioning.
Many would consider a deal with the NDP to be political suicide for Trudeau. This is not. It is a limited mandate grand arrangement designed to offer an alternative from chaos should the only other options be a coalition the Liberals will not participate in or chaos. If the GG wants to force the CPC into a government in the event of a near tie between the parties he can do so. The Liberals could simply refuse to do a colation with either party and agree only on an arrangement like this.
You say a minority can come out but if the parties are almost even and nobody wants to do a coalition this does get complicated becuase governing without a formal arrangement and only 1/3 of the House has not been done before and the GG does not have to agree to it. We have never had a deadlock like what we are looking at right now. This is a legitimate option in the case of deadlock to ensure a one-year government rather than a new election two parties have no money for and a third no leader for (if Harper goes).
This is no less plausible than Trudeau agreeing to a formal arrangement after saying so many times he would not -- or that the GG would not insist on a formal arrangement if no party has more than a third of the seats -- or that the Liebrals would sit with the CPC and not insist the NDP be in there as well as a condition.
In fact a one-year caretaker government might be the only option that is not suicide for at least one of the parties. you somehow expect to work together.
As I say -- this is ONLY if the three parties come out with a near tie AND the GG decided that the circumstances required a more stable arrangment than a case-by-case option AND Trudeau and the other leaders decided that they could not agree on terms for an arrangement given that such a deal could be politically catastrophic to their parties. With Harper gone -- I think a majority of Canadians would prefer this over a new election or a lack of stability.
And do not suggest I am smoking something -- thanks
Was this process followed during all those minority governments in the 1960s and 70s? I don't remember it. I just remember the party with the most seats forming a government, and scrounging votes where they could from day to day. But I never heard about any of the things you are suggesting back then, or at least I don't recall it. Do you have some historical precedents for this opinion?
May's offer to mediate a coaltion arrangement between Lib and NDP is laughable. There is no way that this would happen. These two parties already have leaders, why would they want to work with a nutjob like May? She has smeared her opponents with half truths to supporters for years and I disagree that she garners a lot of respect.
May is on the outside looking in and this is one of her fantasies to make her feel useful amongst the big power brokers of Ottawa. I would think MP's have long figured out by now that she is all about herself.
They didn't have Elizabeth May to help them back then, so they had to muddle through it alone.
My party leader is a Saintly Genius.
All other party leaders are Sicko Crooks.
Thanks for the profound and thoughtful political analysis.
Anyway, a nutjob is definitely better than nothing. Ask any unemployed person.
Would you make a slight effort to get your mindless insults straight?
It's Trudeau who is "Justin-it-for-me", not May. She is "I'll-lose-a-bet May".
Pass it on.
You read my post. There you can see the difference.
For detail here you go:
1962 PC party had 43.7% of the seats vs third party 11% seats
1963 LPC had 48% of the seats vs third party with 9% seats
1965 LPC had minority with 49.4% vs third party with 7.9% seats
1972 LPC had 41% compared to third party with 11% seats
1979 PC had 48.2% compared to assisting 4th party with 2.2% seats
In all cases the enabling party had less than a third of the number of the seats of the governing party which was between 9 and 2% of a majority.
Now today we are talking about a scenario where the parties could all end up with less than 35% of the seats. This was the specific scenario I was describing. In this case the enabling third party might be only a handful of seats behind.
This changes the dynamic in a couple ways:
1) the governing party has fewer representatives
2) the enabling party has current designs on governance and could be a couple byelections away from first place
This means that the stability of an almost majority party governing with the help of a very minor party is not comparable to a 1/3 party using the votes of a party almost the same size to pass legislation.
****
So to answer your question:
First, there is no historical precedent at the federal level where the top three parties are as close as we are potentially seeing now. So we would look to other jurisdictions. In most other countries a situation like this would result in a coalition.
In a Canadian context we do have the Ontario example of 1985. This case the party with the most seats did not end up in government as it was defeated. The first two parties were almost tied with a four-seat difference. The third party had roughly half the number of seats of the two leading parties. In this case the relative sizes of the parties was closer and the case-by-case option was not considered enough. So instead they came to a formal arrangement, short of a coalition. In this case the governing Liberals had 38.4% of the seats vs the NDP with 20%. And they did an Accord.
If the third party of the present election were to get say 60 seats (17%) and the first and second were to get close to 136 seats each (40%) then based on the Canadian precedent the GG might expect some kind of Accord such as Ontario in 1985 or agree to a less formall arrangment such as what happened in 1972. There is discretion.
However if the three biggest parties only managed 110-113 seats each in a three way split ocming all within a handful of seats of 1/3 there would be no precedent. No national government has ever tried to govern in Canada with such little representation.
The weakest government in Canadian history, numerically, was the 1971 government that at least managed 41% of the seats, more than triple the enabling party. So you are asking for a precedent for a problem that has never before existed. Internationally evenly matched parties (governing, opposition AND enabling parties) produce coalitions in order to provide stability.
Now add to the mix the fact that the GG is aligned with a party that might try to prevent two of the other parties from governing without a stronger mandate along with a constitutional mandate to ensure a stable government that has confidence. There is nothing improper of a GG demanding reasonable assurances that an arrangement is stable. If Trudeau were to keep his promise and reject a deal just with the NDP, a three party arrangement might become the only alternative to going back into an election that is not certain to resolve the deadlock.
Again, you ask for precedent: never in Canadian history have we had parties deadlocked with one party toxic to the other two and a second categorically refusing any formal arrangment with the other. A three party government would seem to be a possible alternative, where the others have been categorically rejected. I gave reasons why the parties might like that option And here I explain in detail why we are in uncharted territory.
I think it might also be safe to say that no party leader in the same position will be as categorical as Trudeau has been going into this.
It is important to consider the combination of the potential for a challenge to the moral legitimacy of a practical arrangment between the NDP and Liberals given Trudeau's pronouncements together with the potential for a practical necessity to have a formal power-sharing arrangment when the parties are, for the first time in history, deadlocked in a tie. The only alternatives if no coalition is possible between two parties, nobody has a strong enough mandate to go alone, and a new election is unlikely to resolve the issue, would be a temporary coalition of the three parties. I consider this more likely to be proposed than Trudeau agreeing to step in bed with the CPC without the cover of an invitation to the NDP. This might be the only good out Trudeau has and the others could be put in a bad position to refuse.
As I said absolutely no reasonable comparison between those minorities and we what we might see now. For the first time we might see three parties all just short of governing strength but all aspiring rather than two parties with at least one almost a majority with a much smaller tie-breaker. The difference in terms of stability is massive and there are global precedents for this even if there are no Canadian ones.
Let's remember Canada was a 2 and a half party system until 2011 when it became a three party system. This time we might ha a minority in a decidedly three party system This has never happened in Canada but has elsewhere and the solution is the one Trudeau has rejected.
Having no formal arrangement for a government of barely over 1/3 of the House over two parties of almost the same size is not stable.
May not be respected for all her opinions but she does have good communications with all parties and if there is a situation where they are not talking to each other, her offfer is not as ridiculous as it sounds.
Remember now the MPs of all parties have selected her at times as the most hard-working member of the House. Her relations are more cordial than you think.
The partisans are more hostile to her than the parties themselves are and if she is not trying to get into the arrangement herself, she could be considered a useful third party to enable the discussion. As I said, if the GG himself maintains good enough relations (yet to be seen ) it is possible the GG could invite all three leaders to Rideau Hall and hammer out something. Perhaps even what I described above as a last resort.
But it is no more silly for May to propose that she could have a deal-making role than it was for Layton to say he was running for PM.
The other parties might respect her. I doubt that any except the Libs would trust her.
Anyway, while being the meat in the sandwich this way is probably a wet dream in a warm bed to May, I really have my doubts that we're going to see the kind of "perfect storm" from which only she can save us.
So, Sean, what is the magic set of seat numbers at which the responsibilities of the governor general change so markedly from all our past experience? And what convinces you that they change at all, at any number? Is it just your intuition?
I agree with you that these are narrow unlikely circumstances but to say it is impossible or she is wrong to put herself forward makes no sense.
Also I dsagree with saying this is about saving us. this is about her being a go-between to start a conversation. That is a little less ambitious than you suggest and in the right circumstances it could be helpful.
It could be quite difficult for both Mulcair and Trudeau to approach each other directly.
I suspect that the GG himself will take that role and that is why I see May as having no purpose in this. But if the GG does not, and the parties are close in seats and not talking, there could be purpose in her trying to bring them together...
I'm not saying that anything is impossible. And I'm not saying that offering to help is "wrong".
But it seems just a wee bit narcissistic to have a contingency plan all worked out that puts her on centre stage, and to offer help where none has been asked for.
Why not just sit by the Green Phone and wait for the call from Commissioner Gordon? "Elizabeth, get Justin the Boy Wonder and jump in the Prius -- Gotham needs you!"
Your question misses the point.
The responsibilities do not change -- the GG is to ensure a government with the confidence of the House and the GG has some discretion in this. For the most part the government is obvious-- so much so that the other parties immediately recognize it. In fact we may face a debate about who the lead party should be for the first time in Canadian history -- never mind the deal they should have in order to satisfy the requirement for stability.
I don't understand how you could ask a question that I have already answered in detail.
I have stated that we have never had a minority before where the governing party has less than 41% of the seats and the party relied on to get a majority is more than 1/3 of the lead party. You don't need to point to a specific line to see that what we are seeing now has never, ever happened in Canada. We could have three parties all within a handful of seats of each other.
There is no manual for the GG -- the consitutional requirement is to ensure a government. The discretion is not there when there is a clear governing party but it is wide open when there isn't and there is no precedent in Canada.
The third party is not a king-maker if it is aspiring to be a king itself which is what we might see for the first time in history.
In this circumstance the GG could well advise the parties to come back with an arangment that has some stability -- more than we'll just pray for support at each vote. The GG has a responsibility not to put up each of the three options and watch them all get voted down by the others and a new election produce the same stalemate. Instead the GG can say -- the first to show me a governing arrangment with a committment to at least a year gets a shot. And a three party arrangment might be just that deal.
Let's not forget that this is the absolute most important function of the GG -- to ensure there is a government. I don't see a GG just accepting a wing and a prayer from a House that is almost evenly divided among three parties that all aspire to govern and are all almost there.
We may also see the vote in some close ridings contested such that it is not even clear which of the three parties are the first party.
So no-- this is not my intuition -- it is based on:
1) the constitutional role and responsibility of the GG
2) the fact that this is unprecedented so that previous history is not adequate instruction
3) international practice (which has been categorically rejected by Trudeau)
As well going back to 1972 which was the weakest federal government in history (two seats over the opposition and 41% of the seats with the third party at 11% of the seats). At that time Trudeau senior used the Senate to give representation where it was thin and relied on the Senate Caucus to bolster cabinet. Today's Trudeau has no Senate Caucus and the Senate is in disrepute.
Your mocking her is partisan in the same way Layton was mocked when he said he was running for PM -- not only in 2011 but the election before that. And in the same way he was mocked in 2005 when he tried to deal with Martin even though he did not have enough seats to put any deal on the table.
Putting herself forward makes good sense politically and it is conceivable given the climate that parties might have difficulty speaking to each other.
It is no more presumptious for her to aspire to this than it is for any of the other leaders to aspire to be PM. She is trying to maximize her weight as a small party -- even to exaggerate what that role might be at times.
Hard to imagine a New Democrat that cannot understand this if they stop and think about it.
She is bang on suggesting this. It is what she must do as leader of a party with only 2 seats that is unlikely to have the numbers to be a real coalition partner or have the balance of power. She is reaching for a more minor role-- getting parties to talk when they have a difficulty doing that and the initiative might be hard for them to make.
I can see a circumstance where it is a point -- who called whom. She provides an alternative as a broker. It could be the only role should would be in a position to play. It is more likely that she could have this role than almost any other I can think of.
In my opinion, the 3-party minority is really no more unstable than the traditional 2.5 party one. In both cases, the opposition will be happy to defeat the government any time it looks politically advantageous to do so, and reluctant to defeat the government if it looks politically disadvantageous. What factor makes the 3 party situation any more unstable?
I disagree. I don't think it's at all presumptious for any party leader, including May, to aspire to being PM. In fact I think it's an absolutely critical part of their job description. To be a party leader who doesn't aspire to forming government would be like being a stockbroker who doesn't aspire to help their clients profit, or an NHL coach who doesn't aspire to win the Stanley Cup.
But this newly-imagined role as Special Shuttle Diplomat seems like nothing more than May trying to stay in the spotlight after losing. It's surely not some natural extension of her job description.
And on a more pragmatic note, having stopped just short of publicly licking stamps for Stephane Dion, why exactly should either the Cons or the NDP believe that her involvement will be for the benefit of Canada rather than the benefit of the Liberals?
Again I answered this already --
1) lower percentage of seats
2) the enabling party with the same interest in parliament (not to influence but to govern -- right now)
This is significant. When the NDP was way back and saw little hope of governing it had an interest to continue the status quo in a parliament where it had influence in propping up the government but in this situation the third party aspires to control the government now -- not just to gain a few seats but to gain power -- right now.
Propping up the government holding the balance of power was the best the third party could hope for in the previous minority cases. That is a whole lot less than what we might see where a new election is more likely to bring them to power.
Put bluntly -- we have never had a government in Canadian history propped up by a party that could realistically expect to vie for the government in an election caused by a lack of confidence -- In the past only the official opposition could hope for that. That is a HUGE change in the stability of the government. It would barely be news for the third party to lead the first opinion poll after the new government is installed. We have never seen this before. Right now we have three current opinion polls showing each of the three major parties in the lead at the same time. Why do you ignore how significant that is and how different that is from anything we have seen before?
As well the relative size of the government means lower representation (which is a function of government) as well as greater fragility.
I have laid this out with details. Dispute if you want but why continue asking what I have already answered: This is an unprecidented and precarious balance of power the like we have never seen in Canada, but globally we do see. In the rest of the world you do not see parties with 1/3 of the seats govern without partners on a case-by case basis. The global solution has in this election been rejected by one of the parties. The third is so toxic that the only arrangement that could see them cooperate with another party would be one where all three parties were involved.
You ask the questions but you seem to be ignoring the replies.
Not a lot of specific trust is required for her to take the cover of the initiator so neither of the others have to be and to deliver a message.
MPs of all parties usually do have respect for and good relations with May -- even when they duke it out with each other.
May will likely only have her one seat. If lightning really strikes she might get up to three.
She is presumptuous to the point of arrogance to be claiming this umpire role in the new Parliament.
And no I don't think she has the respect of the other parties. The NDP MPs I have spoken to about her certainly don't trust her in the least. The Liberals largely regard her as a useful idiot.
The thing with May is that she gets different treatment from MPs within vs outside of the house. MPs understand that public credibility is different than credibility in the house.
OK, Sean, I now understand your position. I just disagree with you about most of your conclusions.
I don't see how this is true about the Green platform. Are the other Opposition parties even contemplating ideas to abolish tuition, forgive student debt, or establish a national pharmacare programme?