Andrew Coyne was correct when he recently stated in the Globe and Mail that there is a fair likelihood that the next federal election (whenever it occurs) will end in no party holding a majority of House of Commons seats. The Conservative Party has won the popular vote in the last two elections, and recent polling indicates that it is poised to improve its seat count—including a possible plurality of total seats. Coyne also correctly points out that this outcome may result in a constitutional (or at least political) crisis.The risk of a crisis (or at least a period of unrest) appears to be enhanced by the subsequent commentary on Coyne's column. On the one hand, liberal observers would wholeheartedly agree with Coyne's conclusion that the current prime minister should use his incumbency to take the first shot at enacting a throne address and gaining the confidence of the House.Detractors, on the other hand, will argue with equal fervor that the party with the most seats should, by definition, be given the opportunity to try to govern, based on common sense and possibly even convention.Because of each side's self-confidence, neither will spend much time stating their points between now and the election, nor will the Liberals or Conservatives, who will only talk about their separate intents to win. So it's worth considering the likely outcomes of the next election to see how the conflict might play out.The NDP's chances of obtaining the most seats appear remote, as do the chances of another Liberal majority.
The Tories will seek a majority, and while it is not impossible
especially if they gain significant traction during the writ period, the nature of Conservative support makes it difficult. The Conservative vote is famously inefficient (meaning it is high in certain places and low in others, so increased popular vote does not always result in higher seat count), hence the party may struggle to translate greater support into a clear majority of seats won.If the Conservatives underperform, as they have in the previous two elections, we may witness another status quo election. If so, there is no crisis. If the Conservatives outperform and secure a majority, there will be no crisis. What if they win the most seats but fall short of a majority? This is when things become interesting. Much of what happens on election night and in the coming days will be determined by how Justin Trudeau and the Liberals react to the results.Given the prime minister's tenure and speculation about his departure as leader, it's reasonable to believe that if the Liberal seat count fell dramatically and the Conservatives gained a large plurality, Trudeau would concede the race. This is not a guarantee, mind you. There would undoubtedly be advisors advising him he had a constitutional argument to make, and that if he could secure the support of a majority of MPs, he could choose not to retire and instead propose a throne address. But the Liberals are astute enough to see that a technical argument will not suffice.
To maintain power, Trudeau would need to make
a persuasive case to the public, who would then need to broadly endorse a departure from post-election custom. Not long ago, the Liberals overestimated the public's tolerance with a coalition government comprised of parties that did not win the majority of seats. The 2008 power play galvanized Canadians around the Conservatives. They rejected the partnership in part because the Liberals would have had to rely on backing from the separatist Bloc Quebecois, but also because it simply did not feel right.What if the seat count is close? What if the Conservatives only get 10 more seats than the Liberals? What if there are just two or three seats? As a result, those pushing Trudeau to make a play to retain power would have a lot more ammo.Under this scenario, the Laurentian elite's comment machine would go into overdrive, producing a slew of op-eds rehashing Coyne's argument that the prime minister can and should seek to retain power. Progressive trade unions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and think tanks are concerned that a Conservative government will make a public case for a left-wing policy agenda that is supported by the majority of Canadians. But Trudeau, Poilievre, and their advisors would understand that only one thing is truly important: legitimacy. Each would try to make their case for it.Trudeau's supporters would refer to the Liberals' connection with the NDP, as well as their recent track record of finding common ground on policy. This case would be made easier with significant electoral program overlap (which is not difficult to envisage) and a compliant NDP membership. The public's story is predictable. "The majority of Canadians voted for progressive MPs. "We can give them a progressive government." The details are more difficult, but they are manageable.
Will the NDP want a formal coalition and seats
in the cabinet? Existing relationships fostered by the supply and confidence arrangement would facilitate these discussions, and recent history suggests Singh's NDP is at ease being a junior progressive partner.All of this deliberation would take happening while the Conservatives spoke to voters. Poilievre's commander is not interested in deference or subtlety. Their argument would be significantly more direct and powerful than their opponent's: "We won." Beyond the central plot, the hidden reasons are also intriguing. The Conservatives will have gained seats, while the Liberals will have lost them regularly across multiple elections. The trend is in the Conservatives' favour.Conservatives have a recent track record of obtaining a plurality of seats, successfully governing, and transforming that outcome into a majority in the following election. It is difficult to picture Singh's NDP acting in the same manner that a more pragmatic Jack Layton's NDP did, but the Bloc Quebecois has moved away from separatist in recent years, making them a more feasible dancing partner. And, in this scenario, the Liberals would be weakened and increasingly divided, with previously quieted prospective leadership candidates becoming vocal again; some of them would likely prefer to let the Conservatives govern briefly while they embark on a leadership campaign, then topple the government when they're ready to fight again.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Comments
Post a Comment