gwest
I'm not at all sure that your hunch about what the Liberals would do - especially if they're whittled down a bit from 2011 - when confronted with an opportunity to share power with a minority Harper contingent.

I can't forget the aftermath of the 2006 election when 'Liberal' David Emerson packed his suitcase and walked across the floor to Stephen's open arms and a cabinet post...and I seem to recall a long form interview with Peter Mansbridge when the new PM made it pretty clear that he feels there really isn't that much difference between Liberals (on fundamentals) and Harper's own views about running the country. Although he clearly hates Pierre Trudeau and probably would have liked to see the Liberals decimated as a political force - he saves his real antipathy for the 'socialist' NDP: Recall that speech in the US when he led the National Citizens Coalition and said of the NDP..."The NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men..."

Furthermore, the antipathy of the power elites (within the Liberal party) in this country toward the possibility that the NDP (despite the centralizing tack it has taken since Jack Layton) might actually get to shape policy and write laws which would affect the ability of those elites to keep managing the economy for their own benefit would be a strong goad to convince Trudeau fils that he should support a minority Conservative government after October 19.

Wells's book, by the way, has some really interesting things to say about the centrality of the 'relationship' between Pee Wee and Ray Novak....it's well worth another read for anyone who hasn't picked up a copy.

deathtokoalas
i responded to this elsewhere, and need to agree in reiterating that the liberals will NOT back an ndp minority, and anybody voting for the liberals under that perception should strongly reconsider doing so. it's not exactly conservative propaganda, but it's delusional of the realities in the house. if you're voting for the liberals for other reasons, whatever - after taking a look at the candidates in my riding, it seems clear to me that the liberal is the best candidate (and he's critical of nafta, to boot) and i may end up doing that myself. but, this idea that the election is going to come up with any kind of arrangement between the ndp and the liberals is nothing short of delusional. the liberals will conscientiously oppose the ndp on the right in an attempt to position themselves as an alternative to the conservatives.

but, they won't outright back the conservatives, either, for the same reason. it would be a suicide pact, in either circumstance.

you can't believe everything these guys say. you should be pretty skeptical about it. but, when trudeau says no to a coalition, he's being dead serious and you should take him at absolute face value. this will NOT happen, in either direction.

but, you could see some floor crossings. even if the ndp win a majority, i'm sure they'd be happy to take the experience of some cabinet ministers. and, if they're just a few seats short, it's the perfect excuse. similarly on the other side.

and, in the long run, there are some liberal mps that will be tempted to bail in either direction. it's an inherent problem with parking the middle party in third place. there will be plenty of pressure to rip the party in half.

the media will not drop this. but voters really need to get it out of their heads. it's not a possibility. it's been ruled out, explicitly. and the liberals would be destroying themselves by even considering it.

trudeau will have little choice but to allow carefully arranged "free votes" on almost everything. and, that will give them the flexibility to run the house from the center, as they pick and choose policies from the right and the left.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/08/19/Harper-Minority-Team/

Wwm
Hi, i agree that the Liberals most likely won't join a formal coalition unless they have the most seats themselves [then they'd think it a great idea] But i do think they'd vote non-confidence in Harper at the first opportunity and allow the NDP to govern like you said through free votes and subtle pressure on the NDP to make their bills acceptable to the Liberals. All of which may be less than perfect but it's still a hell of a lot better than what we have now IMO.

Of course, as i've said before, the best of all possible outcomes, in my eyes, is that the NDP comes up a seat or two short of an absolute majority and that the Greens make up the missing seats in a coalition that puts Elizabeth May in as Minister of the Environment.

deathtokoalas
we may end up with a bit of obscure manoeuvring around the precise point of the election, but i would expect the liberals to prefer harper as prime minster to mulcair, for the reason that it keeps them in direct opposition to a force without momentum. i hope i explained that concept in easy to understand terms; it's a little aloof. allowing mulcair to become prime minister would set a new ball in motion, as it were, and put them back where they started. terms in canada (won via fresh mandate) nowadays seem to be around 10-15 years or so. by that time, they'll be appealing to a generation of people with only vague memories of liberal government, and they'll be in the same position the ndp are now in.

technically, stephen harper will remain prime minister after the election, until he resigns or is replaced by the gg. should the governor general decide he is most likely to win a confidence vote, the issue may never really arise - he could just remain prime minister. see, the thing is that it may not be remotely clear who is most likely to win a confidence vote. and, then what? if the gg cannot make a distinction, how is that he can replace him? and, you can expect harper to pull his usual obfuscating playbook out and, perhaps correctly on an abstract level, argue that it's undemocratic to replace him. the possibility of harper whining about this on tv, combined with the actual reality of such a house composition, may suit the liberals well enough that they don't push this. and, that would leave mulcair arguing he ought to be prime minister with less than majority support - an argument he can't win in the public spectrum. he won't make it.

but, it won't take long for harper to do something like bundle a law against abortion in the budget (i exaggerate only mildly to avoid providing any good ideas). if we end up in this kind of mess, it will be harper that instigates another election by packaging a confidence vote into something the opposition can't support. but he might wait a month or two to let the dust settle. it's risky - it might not settle in his favour. but, there's little other option. harper will not govern under trudeau's thumb.