Election 2015

[Fishbone Jones]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-dickin/trudeau-canada-election_b_7779474.html

Trudeau's Record Shows He's Not a Leader


Posted:  07/14/2015 12:39 pm EDT   

Justin Trudeau is simply not qualified for the job of prime minister. That's the argument of the first hard-hitting book that looks at Justin Trudeau's record as leader of the Liberal Party, The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau.

Canadians will head to the polls in less than 100 days to determine which party's plan they most agree with. While all three parties have charted their respective courses and given ample evidence of how they will attempt to define the election, the book's author, Paul Tuns, argues that Trudeau simply is not up to the job. However, it would be a mistake at this point to label Trudeau as an "unbearably light" one-trick-pony whose only idea is to legalize marijuana. Indeed, Trudeau has made public proclamations on many other policies -- it's just that those policies aren't that good, are not well thought through, and Trudeau offers little detail when asked.

There's a reason the Conservatives have targeted Trudeau for being "just in over his head" or "just not ready," and why the New Democrats remind voters that being prime minister is not "an entry-level job" -- it resonates with voters to believe that Justin Trudeau was basically anointed into his leadership position by a party desperate for a saviour, and the best saviour at the time was someone with a famous last name. Perhaps any one single gaffe could have been dismissed as a mistake, but the volume of complaints and problems under Trudeau's leadership demonstrates something much worse:
•Trudeau's near constant screw ups have resulted in countless apologies and "clarifications" that make it clear that either Trudeau likes to make immature "jokes" about sensitive issues, or that he doesn't understand the topic he was discussing in the first place.
•He laughably promises "open nominations," despite the fact that nearly a dozen Liberal nominations have been called into question for direct interference by Liberal officials or Trudeau himself. That includes an Ottawa nomination where the police were called in to elect Trudeau's preferred candidate.
•Trudeau made a total of $1.3 million between 2006 and 2009 for giving motivational speeches. He would continue this work even after he was elected as a Member of Parliament.
•He claims to want to help the middle class, yet can't define who the middle class is.
•He complained that the Conservatives were supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and invasion (Trudeau claimed it was for nothing more than "domestic political advancement"), but would not articulate what he would do differently.
•He complained the Conservatives were not investing enough money in infrastructure, but would not say exactly where the Conservatives' infrastructure budget should have gone.
•He famously said that "growing the economy" would mean the "budget will balance itself," but would not offer specifics on how he would grow the economy.
•He has no policy on oil pipelines, whether they should or should not be used, and where they should go. Trudeau supports projects such as the Keystone XL pipeline, but blames the Conservative government for the American delay in approving or denying the project. He opposes other projects, often finding a way to blame the Conservatives.
•As a self-proclaimed environmentalist, he railed against "the capitalist machine" but but has since toned down his rhetoric to attempt to appear more moderate.
•He makes vague claims that Canada should develop its resources sustainably and responsibly,  but will not say what he would change about the Conservatives' current approach.
•He has continually supported a carbon tax, the same proposal that defeated former Liberal leaders Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff. He has made it part of the Liberals' 2015 platform.
•He has eliminated conscience votes for his current Members of Parliament, telling them and prospective candidates that they all must be in favour of abortion. This drew heavy criticism from Trudeau's own Catholic church, including a call for Trudeau to be kicked out of the church for going against his faith.
•He has mocked women with a sexist "Ladies' Night" that proposed "tough" questions like "what's your favourite virtue?" and "who are your real-life heroes?" When he was asked a real question (which country besides Canada do you most admire?) by a woman who wasn't there for Trudeau's nice hair, Trudeau infamously quipped China, "because their basic dictatorship is allowing them to turn the economy around on a dime."
•He says putting criminals in jail is being "dumb on crime," but would not give a Liberal plan to better rehabilitate criminals. He says he would consider repealing mandatory minimum sentences and the mandatory victims' surcharge, which is used to help support victims of crime.
•He initially voted to keep the long-gun registry, but has since downplayed his support for the failed policy, claiming he would not bring it back if given the chance.
•He initially voted to increase penalties for individuals using drugs, including marijuana, but since becoming leader has championed marijuana legalization as one of his core policies.

Voters are beginning to weigh their options for this fall's federal election. With a leader like Justin Trudeau, it's no wonder that voters are increasingly passing over the Liberals and moving to the Conservatives or New Democrats. But hey, maybe come November Trudeau can join disgraced former Liberal leaders Michael Ignatieff and Dalton McGuinty with a cushy speaking gig at Harvard.

Daniel Dickin is the author of Liars: The McGuinty-Wynne Record.

All wrapped up in a nice, neat bow.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-dickin/trudeau-canada-election_b_7779474.html

All wrapped up in a nice, neat bow.

Daniel Dickin's column is the print equivalent of this, albeit with lower 'production values'. It is the same mish-mash of half truths and innuendo with just enough factual base to not make it libel. The "Just Not Ready" ads, while tough, even verging on being unfair, are more subtle. The NDP video ad is not meant to be subtle: it is 100% attack and it hits hard and it hits home because it tells many Canadians what they already feel. The NDP video is "good" because it starts by reminding Canadians that the Liberals were ~ therefore probably still are ~ corrupt but the Conservatives failed to clean up 'political corruption' in Canada, and, in fact, just wallowed in the mud, like Liberals.

 

[Remius]

This analysis by Eric Grenier is interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-holding-on-to-lead-with-3-pillars-of-b-c-ontario-and-quebec-1.3150943

I think most of us agree that Ontario is the key but if the vote is split three way there, the other provinces become vital.  The polls may not indicate actual seat to win but he highlights the point that the NDP keep closing the gap every week in Ontario.

 

[Harrigan]

I'm going to suggest that many COs have been caught on the horns of a similar dilemma and I guess that many (most?) have reacted much as Prime Minister Harper has done.

What CO has not been given an order than (s)he knows, in her/his heart, is wrong? Who has not gone to the brigade commander and, in a private moment, protested? The brigade commander, who, we might suspect, also objects to the order has, however, being an excellent officer, made the unpleasant order his/her own and has clapped the worried CO on the shoulder and said, "I know this is very hard, <name>, but it is necessary for the good of the service, even if that's not entirely evident from your perspective in 1NNNN." The CO might guess that the brigade commander was, himself (or herself), up to see the higher formation commander with a similar complaint, but, here we are ... 

What does the good CO do? Two choices, of course:

    1. Resign and then make a public noise about this issue ... if anyone will listen; or

    2. Go back and, again, "make the order his/her own" and ensure that it is executed in 1NNNN in an exemplary manner.

        (Note, please, that I did not give a "choice" of returning to the unit and disobeying the order; I do not believe that is an ethical choice when faced with a lawful command.)

The Supremes (higher HQ) have given the prime minister (the CO) some pretty difficult arcs of fire: arcs that may make accomplishing the task at hand so difficult as to be a practical impossibility in the current political environment. Disobedience is not an option because the Supremes have given the constitutional equivalent of a lawful command.

What is the "current political environment?" In my opinion it is one in which no one in his/her right mind* wants a constitutional congress, and, since that is, de facto, pretty much the only route the Supremes have left open** there is not much a prime minister (Harper or Mulcair) can do except try to manage with the current mish-mash.

_____


** I suspect there might be a political work-around, but it might, also, be dangerous ~ like walking into a constitutional minefield.

Mr.Campbell,

I like your response, and your suggestions (will discuss that later).

However, the response is completely based on an incorrect assumption: that the SCC is somehow a HHQ compared to the poor old PM.  That is a CPC myth that they have been pushing for years - ever since they made the conscious decision to repeatedly push judgements to the SCC with full knowledge that they would be struck down.  Clearly they feel there must be some sort of political advantage (with their base, presumably) to playing the victim to the SCC.  But to most, if just looks like they don't do their homework.

The Supreme Court does not give commands.  They interpret existing laws, like one's JAG does when you ask them for advice.  To suggest that they rule over the PM is misleading in every sense.  (Besides, Harper appointed 7 of 9 members of the SCC, and he, not the SCC, can amend the laws and the Constitution - the polar opposite of a HHQ.)

The buck stops on the PM's desk.  (yes, I know technically it stops on the Governor-General's desk, but we all know that the GG does not hold de facto power in Canada).  I get that the CPC narrative is that the poor PM was thwarted by the bogeyman SCC.  The reality is that the PM is scapegoating the SCC to his base in order to bury an issue that he has no intention of spending any political capital on to achieve.  I think it is a smart strategy politically, and it will absolutely work.  I just don't agree with politics being the #1 consideration, that's all.

the only route the Supremes have left open

The Supremes haven't defined anything - they have only told the govt what their own law says is the method to change the Constitution.  Why would there need to be a "workaround"?  Why don't they just abide by the law and carry on?  Or, if they don't like the law, then change the law and carry on?  And the way to change the law is pretty straight forward - and hard.  As it should be.

---------------
Now, on to the more fun stuff!  ;D

* I, on the other hand, being old, bored with life and just a little bit off my rocker would love to see a full blown Constitutional Congress, with absolutely everything on the table. I believe that a good prime minister, a tough guy with a fairly fresh majority, could radically reshape the country, for the better: Senate reform, which would be part of the deal, would be part of the fallout, but only a small part. The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau grumbled that, in constitutional negotiations, the provinces only wanted to "trade rights for fish;" I agree with him; and my "good" PM would give them all the damned fish (and other resources) they wanted in exchange for what (s)he wanted:

    1. The complete repeal of the British North America Act, properly the Constitution Act of 1867 and the Constitution Act of 1982 ~ replaced by a few, smallish acts respecting the parliament of Canada and the divisions of powers between the national and provincial
        and city governments. (In effect Canada would have no written constitution ~ a form which I believe to be infinitely superior to what we and the Americans (and Germans and Indians and Russians, and, and, and ...) have). It's important to
        understand that we already have an unwritten Constitution: in Reference re Secession of Quebec our Supreme Court said: "The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of
        constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."

    2. Only five provinces: Pacific Canada, including the Yukon; Western Canada, including the NWT and Nunavut; Central Canada; Canada de l'Est and Atlantic Canada ~ provinces can rename themselves as they wish; and

    3. Absolute independence for provinces in, including taxing authority for, all matters in their exclusive areas of responsibility (§91 and §92 of the Constitution Act of 1867), except when such matters involve international relations, which remain the exclusive responsibility
        of the national government.

Awesome stuff, and I totally agree that everything should be discussed.  That is what a democracy should do - what worked in 1867 (or, ahem, 1787) may not be applicable in 2015.

1.  While I agree that these acts should be revisited, I am always intrigued as to why so many conservatives (not party-based, just in general political outlook) are so vehemently opposed to the Constitution?  Most Canadians seem to support it, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for that matter.  If they didn't, then no PM would be scared to call a Constitutional congress to debate it. 

2.  I would even go further, and suggest discussing the removal of the provincial level of government altogether.  Why should there be so many barriers and different standards between regions in Canada?  Obviously there are regional issues in a country of such size, but nothing a ramped-up municipal government system couldn't handle.  All that said, that is dreaming in technicolor, as the laws of the land enshrine the provincial level of government.  It would take something pretty drastic (such as a province going bankrupt) to even get such an idea on the public radar. 

3.  I am more of a "sum is greater than the parts" guy.  Further to #2 above, I believe that a country the size of Canada (geography matters) must have a strong central government or it will eventually balkanize.  I know that isn't popular in this company, but look at USSR, USA, and China.  All are/were effectively "empires" under one flag.  China has kept it together, USSR did not, and the USA went through a dreadful Civil War between the States that was specifically about "states rights".  I am not going to suggest that a civil war is necessarily possible in Canada, but a weak central government would not be able to prevent existential situations such as Quebec (or Alberta) separation.  Some people may say, "so what is the problem?", and fair enough. 
However, as I mentioned before, I am more of a "Canada is greater than the sum of its parts"* guy, I would quite like Canada to remain united coast to coast to coast.  That said, I have no problem with those who are more "community of communities" or "states rights" oriented - I think those discussions are VERY healthy for Canadian democracy.

* Apologies for using a quote from an ex-PM that is probably not well liked on this board, but I couldn't think of another way to describe it.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

>Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.

Context matters.  The Harper 9-year term includes deficits because of the 2008 financial hiccup.  The Liberals (remember Ignatieff putting the Conservative government "on probation"?) wanted deficits too (remember the G20 "2% of GDP" target?).  And since the counterfactual Liberal government had to be a coalition with the NDP, good luck arguing it would have been more frugal.

Context matters.  I didn't say the Liberals would compare a hypothetical Liberal/NDP coalition government in 2008 to the Harper government's term.  They wouldn't need to use an strawman argument.  I said they would compare the Chretien/Martin era from 1993-2006 to Harper's term, and it would look favourable for them.

So if we are freely giving passes to everything negative about the Harper government, do you extend the same courtesy to McGuinty, Rae, and Trudeau, all of which governed through challenging financial times, and have been criticized for their economic policies?  Didn't think so..... (....and I don't either)

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

>Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

Why?  Apples and oranges.  Propose something that makes sense.

Really?  That's your response? 
I expect the PM to put the good of the nation ahead of personal political considerations.  You, clearly, do not.  Fair enough - you apparently have the PM that meets your aspirations.

"We" also get that people have written articles about the impracticality in the wake of the Supreme Court's advice.  Regardless, the assertion that political conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, or 1990 is foolish; and the constitutional considerations can not be disentangled from the contemporary political conditions.

And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?  I mean, other than their self-induced orthodoxy of "no constitutional discussions of any sort at any cost". 

If you know of something strictly inside the lines of Senate reform (ie. not involving extraneous transfers of money or authority outside the scope of how Senate is constituted) that would get the necessary parties to agreement, let's hear it.

As I said before, the method to amend the constitution has existed for decades.  All it takes is the govt to actually abide by the law, and a PM that has the best interests of the nation as his/her #1 consideration.

>surely you must detest the present PMO.
Yes.  But not as much as I would detest a LPC or NDP one.

Why?

>Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?
I believe it's a Senate scandal, not a House scandal, involving Mike Duffy, not Stephen Harper.  I also know that it is basically about one guy cheating on his expenses for personal gain and/or a sloppy set of Senate (not House) expense guidelines, not a party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power. 

Well, clearly you have received the memo.  I would be interested to know how you know that it is basically one guy cheating on his own, nothing to see here, etc etc, despite clear links to the PMO.  As you clearly are a civics instructor, I don't need to tell you what PMO stands for. 

A "party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power" is precisely what AdScam was, and it was why we kicked out the Liberals in 2006 despite pretty good economic performance.  And you aren't going to tell me that only Liberals are corrupt and Conservatives never are, are you?

As for the media: they managed to educate the public on the finer details of how things work back when the NDP and LPC were trying to form a coalition government;

I am not sure what you mean by this.  Surely you aren't going to claim that a coalition government is illegal....

Harrigan

edit: limited should be 'limiting'

 

[Edward Campbell]

Mr.Campbell,

I like your response, and your suggestions (will discuss that later).

However, the response is completely based on an incorrect assumption: that the SCC is somehow a HHQ compared to the poor old PM.  That is a CPC myth that they have been pushing for years - ever since they made the conscious decision to repeatedly push judgements to the SCC with full knowledge that they would be struck down.  Clearly they feel there must be some sort of political advantage (with their base, presumably) to playing the victim to the SCC.  But to most, if just looks like they don't do their homework.

...
Harrigan

You are quite correct in both what the CPC is doing and why it's doing it.

You're also correct that any governing party has options, but the Supremes have explained, to one and all, that any meaningful Senate reform requires constitutional consultations and that's the ...

         

                                                                                          Catch 22

The only way to change things, like the Senate, is to open up the Constitution for renegotiation , but only a crazy person wants to do that ... and we don';t want crazy people running the country, now, do we?

 

[Kirkhill]

....

And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?  I mean, other than their self-induced orthodoxy of "no constitutional discussions of any sort at any cost". 

As I said before, the method to amend the constitution has existed for decades.  All it takes is the govt to actually abide by the law, and a PM that has the best interests of the nation as his/her #1 consideration.

....

The enthusiasms of youth. 

Dead horses, brick walls and windmills all come to mind.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I said they would compare the Chretien/Martin era from 1993-2006 to Harper's term, and it would look favourable for them.

But to make that point you have to evade reality: without the 2008 fiscal meltdown, the likelihood of any deficits would be zero or close to it - a run of surpluses from 1997 to 2015 would not really yield a favourable comparison to either side.

There is a difference between handling a rough economy well or fairly, and handling it poorly.  I suppose we have yet to see where ON ends up.

 

[PuckChaser]

  I suppose we have yet to see where ON ends up.

We're already seeing it. Decimated manufacturing, exponential increases in hydro costs, inability to balance a budget to name a few things.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Really?  That's your response?

Yes.  You need to find a red herring matched more closely than "appointed commander" and "elected leader" to make it worthwhile discussing.

>I expect the PM to put the good of the nation ahead of personal political considerations.

I hope for it; I don't expect it.  That aside, the good of the nation isn't at stake.  The Senate may be unsightly but it isn't a hindrance.  The fact the provinces are not moved to intervene is good enough evidence that Senate reform is not a priority.

>And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?

That there is nothing in reform that can satisfy the provinces who want abolition, and nothing in abolition that can satisfy the provinces who want to keep it and reform it.

Yes, a method to amend exists.  One can only wonder why it is so rarely successfully used.

>I would be interested to know how you know that it is basically one guy cheating on his own, nothing to see here, etc etc, despite clear links to the PMO.

I only "know" what has been reported so far.  What is it that "links" it to the PMO in a manner you find scandalous?  That Harper told Duffy to repay claimed expenses?  That the COS floated Duffy a private loan?  I haven't read yet any proof advanced that Harper instructed Duffy to cheat on expenses.

>And you aren't going to tell me that only Liberals are corrupt and Conservatives never are, are you?

I'm not, and I didn't.  I find it important to distinguish between mere personal corruption and institutional party corruption.  I think the latter merits a much stronger response than the former.  Clear enough?

When the Conservatives are found to be as corrupt as the Liberals were, they should be thrown out (not given a minority government).  We are not yet there.

>I am not sure what you mean by this.

I meant only what I wrote.  "The media" did a good job explaining the difference between the way the system works and the way people felt it ought to work in 2008.  "The media" do not seem to be too interested in educating voters that this is a Senate problem, not a House problem.  I know there are people who want to use Duffy as an anchor around Harper's neck, and I know why they wish to do so.  I don't have to respect them, and I don't.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting theory ....

Fixed election dates may have taken the uncertainty out of polling day but we are still none the wiser about when the 42nd Canadian general election will formally commence.

This is important because there are indications that the Conservatives will drop the writ early in an attempt to drain the resources of their relatively impoverished opponents.

The election is scheduled for Oct. 19, which, given the convention of recent years, would mean a typical campaign should kick off on Sept. 13.

But the 36 day writ period is merely a convention — and a recent one at that.

Since 1997, most elections have been fought over the now-typical five-week period, with the exception of the 11-week 2005-06 campaign that straddled the Christmas break. But, before that, most writ periods were longer, with the 1926 contest lasting 74 days.

The Conservatives are said to have a cunning plan to extend the campaign this time around for their own partisan advantage. The typical 36-day campaign would limit the amount parties are able to spend to $24-million — a level of expenditure the three main parties can afford with a degree of comfort.

But every day the campaign is extended, that limit is raised by $676,000.

The Liberals and New Democrats are in something of a funk because they are hearing rumours that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will visit the governor general on Aug. 9, which would raise spending limits to $45-million. Conservative MPs say they are betting the call comes closer to Aug. 20, which would raise limits to around $40-million.

The Liberals have improved their fundraising efforts in recent years but have still collected just $45-million since 2011. The NDP has raised just $30-million in that period. Neither are likely to have anywhere near that amount in the bank — it costs money to run a party and at one point the Liberals were spending 50¢ to raise every $1.

By contrast, the Conservatives have attracted donations of $69-million since 2011, according to Elections Canada ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although this story, from Reuters, is about Europe it should provide a cautionary note for those who favour the sort of proportional representation that Israel and several European nations have.

We Canadians should all remember the financial crisis of 2008: the (Conservative) government of the day wanted a cautious, muted response; the (Liberal and NDP) opposition demanded (as they can in a hung parliament (minority situation)) strong stimulus spending. You can argue the merits of each case until the cows come home but, I think (hope) most will agree that a crisis is when "selection and maintenance of the aim" (a solid, coherent, policy) is paramount and that's the situation that proportional representation makes difficult. Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants the eurozone to survive, as is; her finance minister, Wolfgabg Schaeuble favours reform, beginning with a Grexit: a deep policy division. Deep policy divisions are the very nature of coalition governments which, in turn, are the very natural outcome of proportional representation.

We, rightfully, give credit to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien/Finance Minister Paul Martin for dragging Canada out of the fiscal hole that another Liberal (Pierre Trudeau) dug for us. In fairness there were three forces pressing on those two men:

    1. Prime Minister Chrétien's "basic instincts" ~ he's a natural, small town fiscal conservative;

    2. Paul Martin's bureaucrats ~ who convinced him, on solid evidence, to make a 180o emotional course correction and abandon his father's (and his own) social agenda in favour of fiscal responsibility; and

    3. Public opinion ~ which, thanks to the "good work" (fear mongering) of the Mulroney government, had shifted, radically, away from Trudeauesque free spending and towards fiscal responsibility.

Having arrived at a coherent policy position, the Chrétien government was able to act because it had a solid majority and didn't need to appease coalition partners.

IF Canada moves towards proportional representation, as M Trudeau wants, we will, always have coalitions (the last time any one party got 50% of the popular vote in a general election was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney's Conservatives scratched out a bare 50.03% of the ballots cast (only 73% of the electorate voted), neither Jean Chrétien's (in the 1990s/2000s) nor Pierre Trudeau's Liberals (in the 1960s, 70s and 80s) ever got 50% of the votes cast, before Mulroney the last 50%+ result was John Diefenbaker, also a Conservative, in 1958).

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's too early to believe in polls ~ leave that until after Labour Day, but this prediction, based on early indicators, might be music to Prime Minister Harper's IF, as we are led to believe, his overarching strategic objective is to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada and leave the country with a de facto two party system:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-ndp-have-even-chance-of-winning-election-simulator/article25521285/

THE GLOBE’S ELECTION FORECAST
Conservatives, NDP have even chance of winning: election simulator

PAUL FAIRIE
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Jul. 16, 2015

The Globe and Mail has launched an interactive election-forecasting tool that analyzes polling data and helps make sense of it all. Try the election simulator at tgam.ca/election-forecast.

Probability of Conservatives winning most seats: 50.4 per cent.

The Conservatives have one-in-two chance of winning the most seats in the election, given the current polling situation. Similarly strong, the NDP place first in most of the other simulations of the Globe’s model. While the New Democrats have a small lead in most of the recent polls, their newly-found supporters won’t necessarily translate all that well into newly-gained seats. Nearly doubling their support in Alberta compared to 2011, for example, will certainly give the party a heap of new votes as well as a lot of strong second-place finishes, but this doesn’t mean they will be able to overcome the usually huge margins of victory for Conservative candidates in Alberta.

                                       

Estimating a 50-50 chance of an event occurring isn’t the predictive equivalent of shoulder shrug, but instead the recognition that at this point in time both the Conservatives and New Democrats have an equally good chance given current conditions, normal campaign changes and past voting behaviour of eventually having the largest caucus in the next parliament.

Probability of Liberals winning most seats: 2.9 per cent.

The Liberals only win the most seats in 29 of the model’s 1,000 simulations. This represents a considerable drop in their chances from a year ago when the party had a clear lead in the polls. The party’s low odds might seem puzzling because the polls suggest a close three-way race. Their chances of outright winning the election suffer because of our electoral system, which rewards winning seats – not votes.

This reinforces the idea that coming third in a three-way race in Canada is a frustrating experience. The 2012 Quebec provincial election, which had a similar dynamic, is illustrative: while fewer than five percentage points separated the first-place party from third, the winning Parti Québécois elected nearly three times as many members as the third-place CAQ. In most elections, a percentage point here and there doesn’t change the elected legislature that follows very much. In a close three-way race, however, it can mean the difference between moving into 24 Sussex and having to look elsewhere for employment.

Probability that NDP and Liberals will control a majority of seats together: 97.2 per cent.

The probability that the New Democrats and Liberals together will win a majority of the seats is incredibly high, estimated at just over 97 per cent. In most parliamentary systems around the world, this result would have a good shot of ending in a coalition government. However, in recent years, even broaching the topic of forming a coalition in Canada has seemed politically dangerous.

In an anti-coalition climate, if the Conservatives have the most seats, and the margin is reasonably large between first and second, you’d have to expect the current government to try to hold on to power in a minority parliament. Would the acceptability of coalitions to Canadians shift if the Conservatives won the most seats, but only by a razor-thin margin? A parliament with three parties nearly tied at 110 seats each might change some minds.

Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour.

The perceived aversion to a coalition, especially by the Liberals, is that they (the LPC) are, currently, likely to be the junior partner and that, I think they think, would be a sure sign that they, the Liberals, are no longer relevant. Plus, the Liberals, at their political DNA level, are a centrist, capitalist/private enterprise party while the Dippers remain, in some large part, true to their cooperative/labour roots: socialism, however weak, is in their hearts. My guess is that some (maybe not most, but rather a lot of) Liberals would be more likely to want to coalesce with the Conservatives before they would join the NDP; that, too, of course, would doom the LPC to history's rubbish heap.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In the National Post, John Ivison speculates that we will go the polls early, in mid Aug, because the rich CPC will want to seriously outspend the (relatively ) poor Liberals and NDP in a prolonged election campaign.

 

[PuckChaser]

House of Commons won't have an opportunity to sit for a fall session anyways, and its a good way to ruin PSACs ability to dump money pre-writ.

 

[Kilo_302]

Anyone else find it despicable that a Conservative MP trotted out the Air India attack to score political points?

Also this NDP MP is pretty great.

“How much bench strength has this government lost, in terms of their ministers and such?” Cullen asked. “She would be a candidate for cabinet. You laugh, but I’m not kidding. Who else they got? She would absolutely be a candidate for cabinet. This is how low the standard has gotten for Harper.”

http://www.straight.com/news/491126/ndp-mp-blasts-conservative-mp-wai-youngs-jesus-comments-profoundly-stupid


Also some of these tweets are pretty hilarious. These are the pylons the Conservatives have in office. What a bloody joke.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/holy-tweets-b-c-mp-compares-conservative-party-to-jesus-1.3152178

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Anyone else find it despicable that a Conservative MP trotted out the Air India attack to score political points?

Nope

 

[Kirkhill]

Nope

Ibid.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I wonder what effect a protracted campaign would have upon the electorate at large?  Would they be so bloody sick and tried of the monkey show come election day that they would not come out to vote with the exception of the various loyalists?  How might that translate into vote results for the various clans?