Election 2011

[kratz]

I have not been able to stop derisively referring to her as our "Illustrious Member of Parliament"

Her extended family, who has been a political force locally was handed defeats this past year due to the fall out federally.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The media may be starting to abandon their favorites:

http://stevejanke.com/archives/314842.php

It will be a pity, in a way. Members will recall that there were high hopes that Ignatieff might be something other than an empty suite parroting the "ideas" from the last remnants of the Trudeau brain-trust. Alas, it appears that he has either changed his mind, done pretty much a 180o course change, or has submerged his own views and is being something of a ventriloquist's dummy.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It will be a pity, in a way. Members will recall that there were high hopes that Ignatieff might be something other than an empty suite parroting the "ideas" from the last remnants of the Trudeau brain-trust. Alas, it appears that he has either changed his mind, done pretty much a 180o course change, or has submerged his own views and is being something of a ventriloquist's dummy.

I think he's just in panic mode. Spouting anything that he thinks may resonate with the voters and he can latch onto. "OK, that didn't work, let's try this".

As has been put forward previous, barring some catastrophic last minute faux pas by the CPC, Ignatieff is a dead man walking.

His own party knows it. That's why you haven't seen Bob Rae out there stumping for him. The best he's been able to do is bring out the past two has been Dons of the Librano's, Chretian and Martin. Yup, that'll get people behind you

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure that the fat lady has sung just yet.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I'm not sure that the fat lady has sung just yet.

Totally agree. It will be down to the wire and I have a feeling the end results will be most unsatisfactory for any party looking for a mandate, with the exception of the Bloc. 

 

[ModlrMike]

Totally agree. It will be down to the wire and I have a feeling the end results will be most unsatisfactory for any party looking for a mandate, with the exception of the Bloc.

I don't know. Bringing out the architects of Adscam, as much as Mr Martin might be blameless, probably won't help. It may very well serve as a visual reminder that the other parties, particularly the Bloc and Torries, use to their advantage.

 

[GAP]

I would not count the Liberals out yet....with Dion you could see the writing on the wall from day one.....don't be so quick with Iggy...The Liberals have a good machine and can grind it through, enough, at least to spoil the majority....

 

[a_majoor]

I suspect the results will simply be a change around the margins, but if this sort of sentiment is true, then perhaps the real outcome will be the LPC simply will not allow Mr Ignatieff to trigger a coalition.

Triggering the coalition would make Mr Ignatieff the Prime Minister, insulate him from a hostile leadership review and allow Mr Ignatieff and his "faction" to gain the upper hand in caucus, rewarding his followers and exacting revenge on opponents or anyone who was less than loyal and supportive. Given his generally poor performance on the hustings, in the debate and now watching the NDP gaining ground on the Liberals, I don't think the Liberal brain trust and the people who provide the funding will be very amused or supportive of attempts by Mr Ignatieff to remain as leader.

The only real outlier result I can see might be the NDP gaining enough traction to start splitting the left wing vote in close ridings and allowing the CPC to advance through the center, resulting in a much larger minority or even the long hoped for majority government. Second possibility is the Liberals loose some seats to the NDP, either result triggering the hostile leadership review post haste.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It becomes a numbers game: if, despite the near steady polling during the first half and the lack of a debate `bump` for the Liberals, the Liberals can gain a lot of seats, 30+ and all from the Conservatives, to bring them up to about 110 seats and to bring the Conservatives down to about 115 seats (with about 50 for the BQ and 35 for the NDP), then I would expect the Conservative government to be defeated fairly early on and I would expect the GG to ask Ignatieff to form a government and meet the HoC. If there is a repeat of the Petereson/Rae deal then he might be able to govern for two years or so with both BQ and NDP support.

But I think the Conservatives will make hay out of the BQ support and every time a motion passes with BQ support then Liberal support will decline.

If the combined Liberal and NDP vote is greater than 155, i.e. If the Liberals take 120 seats, if they take over 40 seats away from the Conservatives then a 'good' deal is possible – but the NDP might not want to play.

If, however, the status quo maintains itself: Conservatives with 150± and the Liberals with only 75± then I expect Ignatieff to be bounced pretty quickly. It is possible that if the three opposition parties defeated a government which had actually just improved its standing to 150± the GG might not ask a party with only 75 seats to try to form a government; he might decide that Canadians need to try again to elect a stable majority.

 

[Good2Golf]

I have a hard time seeing the GG accepting the case that might be made by Ignatieff for a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by some sort of tacit understanding of case-by-case support by the BQ, should the Conservatives fail to get a majority.  The argument that might be made by Ignatieff that the Conservatives have failed thrice to achieve a majority and thus don't deserve to form the next Government fails in great part to the fact that the potential "hard coalition" (Lib-NDP) would as well be a numerical minority.  To ask the GG to replace a likely large minority with a smaller composite minority and some as-yet-undefined relationship with an avowed separatist party...sorry, don't see that as being acceptable to the Canadian people, via the GG as proxy of the people.

Regards
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

This is not a continental European republican system.

The G.G. does what the P.M. advises lest he wants a constitutional crisis. And as far as appointing the government, he's not like an elected president, who waits for the first elected person to come to him with proof that he/she can form a government. The G.G. has no such choice to make: He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government. If, and only when, that government is defeated on a confidence vote will the G.G. have the option of asking the next party with the most seats to form a government instead of dissolving Parliament again - but he cannot do so against the advice of his then P.M. or he'll trow the country into a constitutional crisis, as happened the last time a G.G. tried to pull something like that (early 30's if memory serves).

So, regardless of all the "coalition" politics-speak out there, another minority PC government would have some life because it would have meant that:
1- it is still the party endorsed by the most voters;
2- these voters obviously have no problem with the proposed budget;
3- these voters did not perceive any of what the government did as "contemptuous" of Parliament; and,
4- the opposition parties would self destruct if they risked sending the country into another election too quickly on the flimsy hope that the G.G. would ask a coalition to govern regardless of the P.M. advice to dissolve Parliament (which, I am sure would be the advice).

Just my $0.02.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government.

Note that a sitting prime minister is under no obligation to resign until Parliament fires him.  The Liberals received 101 seats to the Conservative's 116 seats in the 1926 election but refused to resign.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is not a continental European republican system.

The G.G. does what the P.M. advises lest he wants a constitutional crisis. And as far as appointing the government, he's not like an elected president, who waits for the first elected person to come to him with proof that he/she can form a government. The G.G. has no such choice to make: He must first ask the party with the most seat to form a government. If, and only when, that government is defeated on a confidence vote will the G.G. have the option of asking the next party with the most seats to form a government instead of dissolving Parliament again - but he cannot do so against the advice of his then P.M. or he'll trow the country into a constitutional crisis, as happened the last time a G.G. tried to pull something like that (early 30's if memory serves).

So, regardless of all the "coalition" politics-speak out there, another minority PC government would have some life because it would have meant that:
1- it is still the party endorsed by the most voters;
2- these voters obviously have no problem with the proposed budget;
3- these voters did not perceive any of what the government did as "contemptuous" of Parliament; and,
4- the opposition parties would self destruct if they risked sending the country into another election too quickly on the flimsy hope that the G.G. would ask a coalition to govern regardless of the P.M. advice to dissolve Parliament (which, I am sure would be the advice).

Just my $0.02.

Re: the highlighted bit - I beg to differ. I think the GG's residual powers do give him or her some wiggle room IF a minority government falls very soon (say less than six months?) after a general election AND IF the next party looks to have nearly as many seats.

Thus, I think a lot of Liberals are hoping for:

BQ    ≈  50
Cons ≈ 115 (a loss of 30± seats)
Libs  ≈ 115 (a gain of 40± seats)
NDP  ≈  30

IF the Liberals have more seats they will be asked for form a government and they can, probably, count on a reasonable (1 year, plus) chance to govern.

IF the Conservatives have more seats then they can be defeated quickly, on the budget, and the GG can and, arguably, should ask the Liberal leader to form a government.

 

[Sapplicant]

I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.

Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (possible, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?

 

[ModlrMike]

I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.

Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (possible, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?

I think that it's not only possible, but also probable. There might be enough blue liberals that don't want another election and are willing to cross the floor. However, they could also be conveniently absent from the house when the next confidence vote is scheduled thereby ensuring its defeat. Much depends on the internal Liberal party politics following an increased Tory minority and a loss of seats for the Liberals.

 

[Dissident]

I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.

Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (possible, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?

I'm sure it is. It will not make me happy.

 

[Good2Golf]

It's possible that they could also walk sideways...there are more than a few "orange liberals" who could find greater harmony with Layton & Co.  Jack Layton isn't a fool, and he did get half his wish list added to the budget, so I don't think Layton is 100% dedicated to a coalition with Ignatieff. If the Conservatives still get a minority, they may further tweak the budget, but specifically only to address a few more of the NDP ideas, thus deflating any reason for Layton to support a coalition. Then, layton's only motivation to be part of a coalition is to be a minister in a coalition cabinet, and that self-serving aspirational perspective is counter to the 'all for one' doctrine of the NDP.

2 more cents

Regards
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Dissident's happines aside, the most likely scenario after such an increase in Conservative seats is for the opposition whip to come up with good face saving excuses for a convenient number of members to be away when confidence votes take place (with small numbers, its easier to find "valid" excuses), at least until the Liberals have replaced Prince Michael (who after such defeat would quit and return to teaching).

 

[Edward Campbell]

I've been holding back on this question for a while now, but I just can't anymore.

Say the CPC is elected in 152-154 ridings. Is it possible (possible, not probable) that a couple or 3 opposition MPs could 'cross the floor' and give them a majority?

First, it is possible that two independents who have, traditionally, voted with the Conservative Government, will be re-elected (André Arthur in Pontneuf-Jacques-Cartier and Helena Guergis in Simcoe-Grey, both are currently running in a respectable second place in their ridings). I think that a few Liberal defections are possible. I hope that Scott Brison might be wooed back into the Conservative ranks. There are constant rumours that Ruby Dhalla might bolt the Liberals but I doubt the Conservatives would want her in their caucus - but her loss might encourage one or two others, especially if Brison returns to the Conservatives.


Edit: typo

 

[vonGarvin]

I hope that Scott Brison might be wooed back into the Conservative ranks.

Has there been any indications that this may happen?