Election 2011

[GR66]

You conveniently fail to recognize that Mr Ignatieff should be bound by his word. You can't call Mr Harper untrustworthy, and not hold his opposite number to the same standard.

I don't disagree that constitutionally there's good legal standing. Asking the GG to consider other options, is not the same as telling them you're the only option.

Had Mr Ignatieff not categorically (twice) ruled out the possibility of coalition, then that would be another matter.

The problem here is an understanding of the word "coalition".  Iggy has said he will NOT form a Coalition government and I have no reason to believe that he will go back on that pledge even if he DOES become PM. 

A "Coalition" governement means that there is an official sharing of the governing duties between two or more parties.  That would mean that an Ignatieff government would have NDP members in the cabinet sitting around the table running the government beside the Liberal members. 

As the current PM has shown there is no need to have an "official" coalition in order to be the government even if you don't have a majority of the seats.  You just need the tacit agreement of at least enough of the opposition to NOT defeat your party on a confidence measure. 

Whenever ANY Conservative confidence bill passed in the House during their terms in government they were in practice being propped up by one or more of the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc.  Does that mean that the Conservatives were "in bed with the Socialists and Seperatists"?  Of course not.  Every confidence vote that passed in the last 5 years passed because at least one of the other parties determined that it was not in their best interest (or if you're feeling generous, not in the best interest of their constituents and the country) to force an election.

Also remember that the Conservative party is a MINORITY government which received a MINORITY of the votes from the Canadian public in the elections which brought them to power.  Even though they have more seats than any other individual party, MOST Canadians however preferred NOT to support them.  That would be the same situation if Iggy were to form a government if a Harper minority were unable to obtain the confidence of the House...just that they wouldn't be the LARGEST group of the various minority parties. 

While I'm not in favour of such an outcome I think it's wrong that some are portraying this as something un-Constitutional, un-Democratic, underhanded and/or immoral.  It's the way our system works and was intended to work.  Our MP's are supposed to be OUR representatives in parliament, NOT their Party's representatives in the ridings.  The largest group of these representatives, regardless of their party affiliation, that can agree on who should govern have earned that right in our democratic system.

[/rant]

 

[Redeye]

That would seem to be why there's such a concerted effort to get young people out to vote, because they tend not to vote Conservative.  The problem will remain splits between the NDP and Liberals in ridings, but there's also efforts (as there usually are) to persuade people to vote strategically.

I don't think we'll see a majority.  Probably more or less the same will be the outcome.

Despite the continuing drip in the 308 numbers I still think that the Tories have a shot at a majority.  I figure that the more this election is seen as an unnecessary snorer with the same players touting the same lines then the greater the likelihood that more people will stay home and watch the playoffs.  In that case a motivated Tory base is likely to be the determining factor.

 

[Redeye]

Our MP's are supposed to be OUR representatives in parliament, NOT their Party's representatives in the ridings. 

It is this very problem that has prompted my father's frustration with the Conservative Party.  He lives in Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley, which was previously represented by Bill Casey, who was booted from the CPC caucus because he refused to vote for a budget that violated the Atlantic Accord.  He enjoyed quite a bit of popularity because he stood up for his riding.  His successor, Scott Armstrong, is viewed by him more as the Party's local mouthpiece in the riding rather than someone who's going to defend the interests of those who live there.  In truth, that seems to be the case with most politicians in most parties, and that, I suspect, isn' t helping voter apathy much.[/quote]

 

[ModlrMike]

Also remember that the Conservative party is a MINORITY government which received a MINORITY of the votes from the Canadian public in the elections which brought them to power.

No, they received the majority of the votes, and secured the most seats. What they didn't do was secure the majority of the seats in the house. However, neither did any of the other parties. What the other parties did accomplish was to receive fewer votes and attain fewer seats. Collectively more, individually less. Then again, we only get to vote for one party (candidate) at a time, so the collective argument is a red herring.

 

[Redeye]

No, they received the majority of the votes, and secured the most seats. What they didn't do was secure the majority of the seats in the house. However, neither did any of the other parties. What the other parties did accomplish was to receive fewer votes and attain fewer seats. Collectively more, individually less. Then again, we only get to vote for one party (candidate) at a time, so the collective argument is a red herring.

No, they did not.  They received a plurarity, not a majority.  The Conservative Party of Canada netted 37.65% of the popular vote.  That means the majority of Canadians did not vote for them.

 

[Scott]

Enough with the numbers game, please. I don't want to have to split that one off as well.

 

[observor 69]

It's called humour folks. 

Say cheese with Stephen Harper
by Scott Feschuk on Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:45am - 25 Comments
What a moment.

I never thought that I – a regular, ordinary Canadian – would get the chance to have my photo taken with the Prime Minister of Canada.

But as luck and crass political calculation would have it, he’s eager to be seen with me! All I have to do is attire myself in such a manner as to flamboyantly display my heritage, thereby rendering me a subhuman prop that Stephen Harper can exploit to woo more of my kind.

Needless to say, I’m in.

As is true of much national folklore garb, it can take quite a while to get into my ethnic costume. Each item has been carefully selected to represent a historic and sacred element relating to my suitably exotic but non-threatening culture.

Join me, won’t you, as I get dressed.

Boxers. This simple undergarment serves as solemn commemoration of the triumphs of my ancestors, who bravely rebelled against the tyranny of the cramped ballsack in the Jockey wars of 1973.

Tube socks. A tribal adornment claimed by legend to have the mystical power to effectively ward off shin splints and, when worn with shorts, female attention.

Jeans. The very foundation of my ethnic costume. The people in my culture differentiate themselves by their selection of colour, with some choosing “blue” and others choosing “bluer.” My ancient male forebears once had to subject their jeans to months or even years of rugged use to forge the holes and other signs of wear that they imagined would make hot ladies find them desirable for mating. Now the Gap does that for us. Note the way the very top of the denim is slightly folded over in an outward-facing manner. This means I’m overweight, and therefore regarded as prosperous and virile among my kind so far as you know.

Sneakers. This footwear represents one of my culture’s proudest and most defining successes: the fact that our children don’t have to spend 14 hours a day making this footwear.

T-shirt. It’s white like me.

Hoodie. For ones of years, my people have sported this hallowed apparel as a way to signify to friends and rivals alike that our other clothes are in the wash. The mustard stain near the pouch is an undying symbol that asserts my individuality and honours my family’s historic napkinlessness.

Baseball cap. The crowning, iconic flourish atop my ethnic costume. The pattern of the sweat ring serves as compelling evidence of our culture’s ongoing and epic summertime struggle against the lawn.

Attired in my visually striking, voter-attracting costume, I am now ready with others of my tribe to be photographed with and simultaneously dehumanized by Stephen Harper. Please advise the Prime Minister not to be alarmed when we all extend our middle fingers. Tell him it’s my culture’s way of saying he’s No. 1.


http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/14/say-cheese-with-stephen-harper/

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, they did not.  They received a plurarity, not a majority.  The Conservative Party of Canada netted 37.65% of the popular vote.  That means the majority of Canadians did not vote for them.

The fact that a majority of Canadians did not vote FOR the Conservatives does not mean that the majority wants anything but a Green, Liberal or NDP government: no one was asked, in recently past elections, or is being asked, in 2011, to vote FOR a coalition. If Prince Michael or Taliban Jack asked Canadians to vote for e.g. a Liberal/NDP coalition then I suspect that many Canadians would do so but many, many more voters would switch their votes from Liberal or NDP to the Conservatives (some to the BQ and Greens). Many (most?) fiscally responsible Liberals (and there are some) would abhor a coalition with the "socialist hordes." Many (most?) committed Dipperrs (who are, by definition, fiscal fools) would also reject the very idea of formally cooperating with the "campaign left/govern right" Liberals - they remember Peterson/Rae in Ontario (1985-87).

Pluralities have been the rule in Canadian elections since 1958 (when Dief the Chief's Conservatives got 53% of the popular vote). Pierre Trudeau's Liberals  never got more than about 45% of the popular vote.

A "coalition of the losers" is constitutionally possible - early in the life of a new parliament, but I am pretty sure it would be political suicide for the Liberals in 2011/12. After about December 2011 the GG will give PM Harper a new general election, based on precedent - no matter how much whinging Prince Michael might do.

 

[GAP]

Nik on the Numbers

The first night after the leaders' English debate has the Conservatives with an 8 point advantage over the Liberals and the NDP trending up to 18.3% support nationally. Support for the Tories stands at 38.9% followed by the Liberals at 31.1%, the NDP at 18.3%, the BQ at 7.5% and the Green Party at 3.1% nationally.

In the wake of the English debate, the Conservatives opened up an advantage over the Liberals in Atlantic Canada outside of the margin of error for the regional sub-sample with support at 49.3% for the Tories compared to 35.6% for the Grits (NDP support stood at 14.0% in Atlantic Canada).

Over the past three days in BC, Conservative support has slid while NDP support has increased although the Conservatives still lead. The ballot support in British Columbia is at 40.8% for the Conservatives, 28.7% for the Liberals, 22.4% for the NDP and 7.3% for the Green Party.

Policy was cited by 54.5% of Canadians as top vote factor.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's called humour folks. 

Say cheese with Stephen Harper
by Scott Feschuk on Thursday, April 14, 2011 7:45am - 25 Comments
What a moment.

I never thought that I – a regular, ordinary Canadian ...

Well, not quite: Feschuk was a speech writer for Paul Martin during the latter's brief tour of duty as prime minister and later partnered with former Liberal PMO deputy chief of staff Scott Reid to form a speech writing company: Feschuk Reid.

 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Enough with the numbers game, please. I don't want to have to split that one off as well.

With all possible sympathy for the Mods, Scott  , and with your desire to keep threads focused, numbers, even at two decimal places, matter in elections - especially when a 'coalition' is, despite Prince Michael's protestations, remains an issue.

 

[Scott]

With all possible sympathy for the Mods, Scott  , and with your desire to keep threads focused, numbers, even at two decimal places, matter in elections - especially when a 'coalition' is, despite Prince Michael's protestations, remains an issue.

E.R.

My issue isn't with the numbers themselves, only with the banter about whats constitutes a majority in certain people's minds.

Cheers

 

[GR66]

I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians. 

I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.

 

[Dissident]

Number for past elections can be found here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians. 

I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.

The Opposition parties are going to use their loss in the upcoming election as an opportunity to run new leadership conventions. Iggy is gone. Jack and Gilles may well be also. These three haven't been able to steamroller Harper yet and their parties are getting tired of them.

 

[GAP]

The Opposition parties are going to use their loss in the upcoming election as an opportunity to run new leadership conventions. Iggy is gone. Jack and Gilles may well be also.

Iggy definitely, Jack maybe, but it will be a health retirement...blah, blah....Gilles....not so much, he may want to replace Marois....

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with E.R. Campbell that forcing the government to fall immediately after an election could very well be political suicide for the Liberals even though it would be quite legal.  I don't have faith however that Iggy won't try exactly that if Harper doesn't at least show some bending towards opposition demands in recognition of his failing to gain the support of a majority of Canadians. 

I also don't have faith that Harper won't attempt to force exactly that outcome by putting forward a very confrontational throne speech that he knows Iggy and the others won't be able to accept without comitting political suicide within their own parties, regardless of the significant damage this kind of action could do to the Canadian political system.

My guess is that Harper reintroduces the exact same budget that the BQ, Liberals and NDP categorically rejected last month. That puts all three opposition leaders between a rock and a hard place: especially if Harper gets an even larger minority.

 

[a_majoor]

The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance have stated they will re introduce the budget once Parliament reconvenes. This is indeed a challenge to the other parties; they forced an election which they and everyone else knew full well would only make a change around the margins so there will be no "reset".

As Edward said, there is not much of a possibility that a coalition (formal or informal) can last long; the BQ and NDP as different brands of Socialist parties (National Socialist and Social Democratic respectively) can probably find common ground but they will be pushing the Liberals very hard as a condition to remaining in power on the one side, and many Canadians will not see this as legitimate regardless of constitutional or other precedents. I suspect there may even be a revolt within the Liberal caucus depending on extraneous  factors like personality clashes or if the "Blue" Liberals can stomach working with the NDP/Bloc.

Mr Ignatieff has clearly signaled for a coalition, it gains him the ability to become Prime Minister, allows him to stave off a hostile leadership review and discipline or punish parts of his caucus that have been less than supportive; all positive outcomes in his mind.

Maybe we need "Another election 2011" thread prepared....

 

[ModlrMike]

How many seats do the Conservatives need to gain in order to replace Mr Ignatieff? At least one, but probably five to eight. That being said, a Conservative majority will seal the deal. Any loss of seats for the Liberals could be construed as a rejection of Mr Ignatieff's leadership.

 

[dapaterson]

There is risk to the Tories in causing too much damage to the opposition.  They may wish to reflect on the Campbell Tories: reduced to a rump in Parliament, with only Jean Charest and Elsie Wayne.  That ultimately resulted in the dissolution of the Progressive Conservatives and the creation of the new Conservative Party, which embraced a larger tent by taking in the Reform voters and thus pushing the Liberals to the left, where they have stayed (and have refused to try to re-occupy the middle, choosing instead to fight the greens and NDP, a dubious strategy).

I'm sure the Liberals were delighted to see the Tories go down in flames; the Conservatives would be well advised to beware causing such disruption to their opponents, as systems move towards new equilibia after disruption, and the "new normal" could well be against their best interests.