NDP's minimal conditions...

[August1991]

It seems possible now that the Tories will form either a minority or a majority government. If a minority, they would probably have enough seats to rely on any one of the opposition parties for support. Whether this is sensible now in the campaign, Layton has stated his minimal conditions:

Jack Layton drew his bottom line for propping up a minority Conservative government today, saying New Democrats won't tolerate gutting medicare or environmental programs and will fight erosion of equality rights and oppose U.S.-led military adventurism.

G & M

Medicare, environment, gay rights, foreign wars. If that's it, I don't think there would be a problem.

----

Meanwhile, what is going on between the Liberals and the NDP? Layton asks Liberal voters to vote NDP and then Martin asks NDP voters to join a "progressive coalition". Martin even goes on the attack against Layton for not attacking Harper. As they say, WTF?

"Jack Layton has been making some very strange comments during this campaign. He's attacked Liberals, not Conservatives. In fact, he's all but ignored Stephen Harper."

Martin said Layton would rather risk a Harper victory "than be faithful to his own party's principles."

CBC

(This was said in BC where there are a few three way fights - does it make sense for Martin to say that in that context?)

[fellowtraveller]

Despite having absolutely prime prime circumstances - a year in the spotlight, a hated Liberal govt, tons of media attention and so on - Layton will still only capture 30 or so seats, still get voter support in the teens.

Jack knows this is not good, not good at all. What to do?

Bring down the Tories at the earliest opportunity, only to repeat the same result, or huff n' puff for the cameras, then stick around by supporting the CPChich also keeps Jack in the spotlight somewhat.

Easy choice for Jack. No choice really.

Minimal conditions? Not really.

[Hicksey]

It seems possible now that the Tories will form either a minority or a majority government. If a minority, they would probably have enough seats to rely on any one of the opposition parties for support. Whether this is sensible now in the campaign, Layton has stated his minimal conditions:

Jack Layton drew his bottom line for propping up a minority Conservative government today, saying New Democrats won't tolerate gutting medicare or environmental programs and will fight erosion of equality rights and oppose U.S.-led military adventurism.

G & M

Medicare, environment, gay rights, foreign wars. If that's it, I don't think there would be a problem.

----

Meanwhile, what is going on between the Liberals and the NDP? Layton asks Liberal voters to vote NDP and then Martin asks NDP voters to join a "progressive coalition". Martin even goes on the attack against Layton for not attacking Harper. As they say, WTF?

"Jack Layton has been making some very strange comments during this campaign. He's attacked Liberals, not Conservatives. In fact, he's all but ignored Stephen Harper."

Martin said Layton would rather risk a Harper victory "than be faithful to his own party's principles."

CBC

(This was said in BC where there are a few three way fights - does it make sense for Martin to say that in that context?)

Jack Layton displayed that though he and his NDP won't get elected on the federal level, they can still govern by extortion. Ask Paul Martin, he knows first hand. The last I heard, if a member of parliament wants to further his cause he creates a private members bill and brings it to the house for a vote. If a majority of the members of the house believe it is in the best interests of the people, then it becomes law.

All indications are that this will continue.

[shoop]

Wasn't the NDPs minimum condition for supporting the Liberal minority government *originally* a guarantee of electoral reform?

Jack Layton displayed that though he and his NDP won't get elected on the federal level, they can still govern by extortion.

[Hicksey]

Wasn't the NDPs minimum condition for supporting the Liberal minority government *originally* a guarantee of electoral reform?

Jack Layton displayed that though he and his NDP won't get elected on the federal level, they can still govern by extortion.

Very good question. However reading through a mountain of NDP quotes would put me to sleep. Get back to me on it.

[August1991]

Jack Layton displayed that though he and his NDP won't get elected on the federal level, they can still govern by extortion. Ask Paul Martin, he knows first hand. The last I heard, if a member of parliament wants to further his cause he creates a private members bill and brings it to the house for a vote. If a majority of the members of the house believe it is in the best interests of the people, then it becomes law.

All indications are that this will continue.

That's all fine and good but with a minority government, another party would have to vote with the government.

[fellowtraveller]

That's all fine and good but with a minority government, another party would have to vote with the government.

Yes, and the NDP will vote with the CPC on nearly everything for the first few months or longer. I don't think Harper will extort easily. The Liberals will be absorbed by a leadership convention for much of 2006, the Bloc will be preparing for a third referendum, and Layton knows he will be seen in a poor light if he takes Canadians to the polls anytime soon. Fingers will be pointed if we have a third election in three years.

Clearish sailing for Mr Harper, for a while.

I think Harper may try to narrow the definition of confidence votes by expanding the use of 'free' votes, and perhaps avoid early defeat that way.

[tml12]

That's all fine and good but with a minority government, another party would have to vote with the government.

Yes, and the NDP will vote with the CPC on nearly everything for the first few months or longer. I don't think Harper will extort easily. The Liberals will be absorbed by a leadership convention for much of 2006, the Bloc will be preparing for a third referendum, and Layton knows he will be seen in a poor light if he takes Canadians to the polls anytime soon. Fingers will be pointed if we have a third election in three years.

Clearish sailing for Mr Harper, for a while.

I think Harper may try to narrow the definition of confidence votes by expanding the use of 'free' votes, and perhaps avoid early defeat that way.

That would probably be a smart move.

[shoop]

I really think Layton's talk of conditions to support the Conservatives isn't really helpful to the NDP.

The Canadian electorate's nostalgic fondness for minority governments eroded pretty quickly over the past 18 months or so. Layton pointing to another parliament of dealing and paralysis only makes more people yearn for a majority government.

The vast majority of Canadians want a majority government, they just can't decide if they are willing to trust Harper with it. The Liberals clearly cannot form one this go around.

That was the rationale behind Harper's discussion today about the constraints a Conservative majority would face via the Senate, the upper echelons of the civil service and the Supreme Court.

Very shrewd analysis in that war room. Very room.

[BubberMiley]

But by saying it's okay, you don't need to trust me, he admits that people find him untrustworthy. That's not shrewd at all.

[Boru]

As long as Paul martin is leader, isn't it possible that he prop a Conservative government?

While there is bound to be some bad blood between the two parties, the ideals of these two men are alot closer together than those of a typical Liberal and Conservative leader.

Paul martin, on a wide range of issues ( economics and finance) sits far right of center.

Do you guys think Harper could simply buy Liberal votes with sound budgeting?

[shoop]

He is admitting that people have some concerns about him.

Why is honesty not shrewd?

But by saying it's okay, you don't need to trust me, he admits that people find him untrustworthy. That's not shrewd at all.

[Rovik]

That's all fine and good but with a minority government, another party would have to vote with the government.

Yes, and the NDP will vote with the CPC on nearly everything for the first few months or longer. I don't think Harper will extort easily. The Liberals will be absorbed by a leadership convention for much of 2006, the Bloc will be preparing for a third referendum, and Layton knows he will be seen in a poor light if he takes Canadians to the polls anytime soon. Fingers will be pointed if we have a third election in three years.

Clearish sailing for Mr Harper, for a while.

I think Harper may try to narrow the definition of confidence votes by expanding the use of 'free' votes, and perhaps avoid early defeat that way.

The NDP will only vote with the CPCs if it is something that the NDP supports themselves, for example govt. ethics. The NDP will not suppport any CPC motions that attacks the NDP's core values. And if the CPC go to the Bloc for support, people across the country may see this as the CPCs "getting into bed" with the separtist Bloc and there would be a backlash.

I think that the NDPs would vote down the govt, doesn't matter if it's 1, 2 or 4 years within the CPC mandate to protect the core values that many Canadians also consider important. In fact, many would praise the NDP for standing up to the CPCs on this issue.

I don't think the CPCs would bring up certain issues to vote anyway if they didn't have the support of either the NDP or the Liberals, because they would never go it alone with the Bloc for the reason I have already noted.

What you define as extortion, I define as protecting Canadian core issues such as Healthcare, Education and Human Rights Issues such as SSM.

[tml12]

The NDP would not vote with the CPC on controversial core NDP issues.

I can see them voting with the CPC on right-wing issues because they know this country will not want another election for AWHILE...