The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...)

[Leaffan]

Ah, Southern Pontiac, what would we do without this wonderful place. ;) But you're telling us that what causes you to froth at the mouth is the government declaring districts as bilingual and then actually enforcing this decision? Do you think public servants in Masson should be able to speak English? It's also part of the National Capital Region. If not, then your problem is with the concept of a National Capital Region itself.

But I must say that in terms of things that cause an entire population to start frothing at the mouth, that's pretty small beans.

I'm not frothing at the mouth, personally. I speak enough French that if the reverse situation were encountered I could get by. I'm pretty sure that any francophone could also get by in my linked situation.

But the problem is that the federal government enacted a law. The federal government chose the boundaries and then the municipal, small-town folks were expected to comply. In the Pakenham case the lady in question had been the Postmistress for decades. Then the feds come along and said "Sorry. You're not qualified to do your job."

And hey, I know it's small beans. But these kinds of things happen, and if the shoe was on the other foot it would start to collectively leave a bad taste in your mouth.

I live on the boarder. My son is attending French immersion school, because it opens more doors for him as he enters the workforce.

I studied French in high school because I saw the benefit, and I was born in Scotland and grew up in southwestern Ontario where the only French they know is escargot and or d'oeuvres.

[RickJay]

You misunderstand Bill 101 when it comes to the workplace.
I didn't say a single thing about the provisions of Bill 101 when it comes to the language of the workplace.

Hardly oppressive, and really, what kind of business would choose to alienate 90% of it's potential clientele anyways?
That is a matter of interest to the business, not me. And of course, the statement that "90% of the population speaks French" quite absurdly ignores the fact that linguistic minorities congregate.

In parts of Markham you will find signs that are entirely in Chinese, despite the fact that far more than 90% of Ontarians cannot read Chinese. Are they alienating 90% of their clientele - or d'ya think maybe they're appealing to their clientele?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

1. Specifically aimed at ensuring public safety. You're going to have trouble convincing me that calling my restaurant "Rick's Place" instead of "Chez Rick" somehow makes my customers less safe or denies them valid information, and
Given that Quebec has Future Shop and Best Buy and Home Depot and Burger King and Scores and... need I go on? I don't think you'd have many problems calling your restaurant Rick's Place. You may have to post signage in French though.

2. Not in any way prohibiting me from saying other things I want to say in the language of my choice. Even if I put ingredient lists on my cereal box in both official languages, I could still adorn the box in German, Chinese, or any other language I felt like.
Sure. So can you in Quebec.

What does "in better shape" mean? It's a wholly meaningless phrase. Under such vague terms you could argue exactly the opposite by simply applying different criteria.
Quebec anglophones have no problems getting served in their language, both by private businesses and by the government. In fact, in many places they can live in English only. (Try living in French only in Ontario, in other places than a few small towns.) They're not threatened by assimilation. They have access to a public education system in their language up to and including the university level.

I'm not sure what your question is. They're in better shape by any criterion you may choose. Do you really doubt this, or are you just debating for the sake of debating?

So just construct the opposite case; Ontario orders that all commerical signage must be in English and the English words must be bigger than any other. Would you be okay with that?
Why would I care? If I lived in Ontario perhaps I'd have some grounds to question the policy. And if it's a law like Quebec's, the government would only respond to citizen complaints and then work with the business owners to help them be compliant, which would make it quite harmless.

I'm not a populist.
What do you mean? You don't think policies are good just because they're popular? You're probably right, but you need a compelling argument if you're to tell people that a policy they consider vital is actually wrong.

[RickJay]

Why would I care?
I guess I'm different in that I have some interest in, and an opinion on, about public policy concerning the freedom of expression throughout my country, not just my province of residence. I want Canadians to be free to lives their lives as they see fit. I'm not gay, but I support the freedom to enter into gay marriages. I'm not black, but racial profiling offends me all the same.

But we're getting off topic. I am simply trying to illustrate that you're conflating opposition to a matter of free speech versus opposition to the simple existence of the French language and its common predominance in Quebec. Many people, like myself, would prefer to see the restrictive aspects of Bill 101 reversed, but don't see anything wrong with the fact that most people in Quebec speak French or conduct their personal lives and business in French. You seem to assume, again and again, that opposition to the fomer indicates some sort of antipathy to the latter.

[Leaffan]

I guess I'm different in that I have some interest in, and an opinion on, about public policy concerning the freedom of expression throughout my country, not just my province of residence. I want Canadians to be free to lives their lives as they see fit. I'm not gay, but I support the freedom to enter into gay marriages. I'm not black, but racial profiling offends me all the same.

But we're getting off topic. I am simply trying to illustrate that you're conflating opposition to a matter of free speech versus opposition to the simple existence of the French language and its common predominance in Quebec. Many people, like myself, would prefer to see the restrictive aspects of Bill 101 reversed, but don't see anything wrong with the fact that most people in Quebec speak French or conduct their personal lives and business in French. You seem to assume, again and again, that opposition to the fomer indicates some sort of antipathy to the latter.
There's nothing wrong with balance though Rick.

I can see why they, in Quebec, would want to protect their culture: their language. Gaelic is all but eliminated in the UK, except that Wales has retained their language by maintaining signage. This has helped keep their language still alive. I'm not sure what government mandates are in effect though.

Similar situation, n'est-ce pas?

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
Well you may not think so. But ask Cat Whisperer what she thinks about official bilingualism. Or Uzi. Or Sam Stone.
<snip>I think bilingualism could become a non-issue in one generation if we committed to all Canadian kids learning both languages, across the country.

<snip>Alberta does tend to be more socially conservative than many of the other provinces, but it still has a gay scene, it still has environmentalists, and it still has a 38.7% group that does not intend to vote conservative.

Alberta is not known for its cultural scene, and yet from the following article in the Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/alberta-has-canadas-biggest-appetite-for-culture-again/article1803231/). Calgary Opera has produced more world premieres of Canadian works than any other company in Canada. That doesn't seem to jibe with the image of Alberta as having a less active culture than Québec, but it's a fact - "Over the past nine seasons, Calgary Opera has presented four world premieres, with a fifth in this upcoming season, three Canadian premieres, and many company premieres." - from the Calgary Opera (http://www.calgaryopera.com/about/development.php) website.
<snip>Every city that has a Muslim mayor, raise your hand. :D

[Leaffan]

Every city that has a Muslim mayor, raise your hand. :D

Do city councillors count? ;)

[Cunctator]

More of a GQ question really, but this thread is up and running: are Canadian federal elections required to be held on Mondays? Or is it just a convention?

[RickJay]

More of a GQ question really, but this thread is up and running: are Canadian federal elections required to be held on Mondays? Or is it just a convention?
By law a general election must be held on a Monday or, if the week chosen has a holiday on the Monday, the Tuesday.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Montreal and Quebec City contain some of the best examples of heritage architecture in Canada. Western Canada merely has isolated spatterings of such items. Both cities have a far more old school European urban feel than Vancouver. IMHO. Adds a lot to the country in that aspect.

Here on Vancouver Island they say that Oak Bay is more British than Britain.

And we got Asian feel on the west coast.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I thought some of you might find the editorial cartoon (http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/bd/1e/a328f5d04f8e85f125372f433df9.jpeg) from today's Toronto Star amusing.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Well, you're an opera singer; knowing a few languages, especially French and Italian, is an asset to you. :)




You'd be astonished how seldom lines like 'Je mange l'odeur de tes cuisses.' or 'Où dois-je naturaliser le pétrole de mon cœur?' come up in everyday conversation... (Both actual lines from 'Le Vampire et la nymphomane', music by Serge Provost to a text by Claude Gauvreau.) :)

[Raygun99]

Here's a good reason to root for a minority result:
If there's a majority, because of fixed election laws, every following election will occur during the playoffs from now until there's another minority (or by some strange chance, loss of confidence).

[Leaffan]

Here's a good reason to root for a minority result:
If there's a majority, because of fixed election laws, every following election will occur during the playoffs from now until there's another minority (or by some strange chance, loss of confidence).

No. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_election_dates_in_Canada)

On November 6, 2006, the Parliament of Canada passed Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act. It requires that each general election is to take place on the third Monday in October, in the fourth calendar year after the previous poll, starting with October 19, 2009.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

The conservatives have filed a complaint (http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/517010--conservatives-ask-elections-canada-to-nullify-votes-cast-at-u-of-g-wednesday) about an advance polling station at University of Guelph, claiming there was partisan material present. If their complaint is upheld, about 700 votes would be thrown out.

In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate's communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

[Muffin]

Worried that the vote won't go your way? Disrupt the poll and try to steal the ballot box. Colour me impressed.

[Ike Witt]

Worried that the vote won't go your way? Disrupt the poll and try to steal the ballot box. Colour me impressed.

There was a story yesterday of Liberal supporters from a particular riding getting phone calls from a call centre in North Dakota. The Liberal candidate called it a classic attempt to suppress votes.

[Rysto]

There was a riding in the maritimes where voters received phone calls exhorting them to vote for the NDP candidate ... who had dropped out of the race. :dubious:

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

There was a story yesterday of Liberal supporters from a particular riding getting phone calls from a call centre in North Dakota. The Liberal candidate called it a classic attempt to suppress votes.

I'm sorry, I don't get it. Am I missing something? What was in the phone calls to suppress votes?

[Muffin]

Search about on the SDMB for telemarketing threads. I expect that you will find a great deal of hostility directed at telemarketing. Want to get people to vote against you? Subject them to telemarketing on your behalf.

[Malthus]

Hatreds, maybe not. But I do notice that the 1991 New Brunswick election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Brunswick_general_election,_1991) led to a party whose platform was basically "opposition to bilingualism" forming the official opposition. And I seem to remember that Moncton didn't become a bilingual city without people objecting. New Brunswick certainly isn't a place subject to excessive inter-community strife, but even there we can find some.

You can find some anywhere. The problem is that you have proposed a cause-and-effect realationship which has no predictive power - or rather, the real-world evidence is against it.

You may be confusing cause and effect here. I'm not sure what "distorted and abused ethno-nationalism" is exactly, but certainly it doesn't appear out of the void. Very uniform populations see little in the way of inter-community strife; how can it be otherwise? Places where many nationalities coexist are more interesting, no doubt, but historically they're where problems arise.

I disagree. Having a "very uniform population" may lead to an increase in bigotry, which is then vented upon those rare persons who are not of the majority - hence cross-burnings on lawns and the like are more likely where the population is mostly of one majority ethnicity, directed at those few rare outsiders daring to live there - than in a multi-cultural setting.

Why, Canadian culture of course, what else? :D Regardless of where they're from, Torontonians watch the Leafs on CBC Saturday night (ok, maybe not right now :p) and talk about how proud they are of being Canadian. And of course they use English as their common language of communication, even though it's quite possible that less than 50% of them actually speak it natively. Torontonians can have different origins, but they are one people. Do you see the distinction?

You are simply wrong. Try hanging out in my neighbourhood this summer, and catch the Ukranian festival that closes off the street.

What you miss is that people are quite capable of having multiple levels of identity and allegiance - they idenify as (say) Ukranian in ethnicity and culture, while still being "proud Canadians" in nationality.

In Quebec this isn't an issue (or if it is, it is the whole issue): that many people in Quebec want their nationality to line up neatly with their ethnicity. People from Quebec often seem to view non-Quebec Canadians in the same light, as their mirror-image - your post is a perfect example of this - as "ethnically Canadian", a Canadian "people" who identify themselves as "Anglos" as much as some Quebec folks identify themselves as "Québécois".

But such is not the case. Many if not most outside of Quebec have multiple levels of definitions for themselves - whether provincial (Newfoundlanders for example), or ethnic-religious (Jewish), or by culture or origin (Ukranian, Jamacan). Their view of being "Canadian" has less to do with self-idenity as an ethnic group, and more to do with allegiance to a particular vision of how society ought to be run, a particular set of laws and institutions which, for many, created a safe haven from the hell-holes they or their ancestors fled from. Often, these hell-holes were created by folks who wished to create ethnic conformity (for example, in Europe).

Hence the simmering dispute with Quebec. It is not, reagardless of what some people from Quebec may think, a symmetric ethic conflict between two big ethnicities, defined primarily by language. It is, rather, a conflict over how society ought to be ordered - as ethnic enclaves, or as a society where ethnicity is irrelevant.

Bilingualsim is a well-intentioned but doomed compromise. Doomed, because really aside from gov't coercion or inherent interest in the language there is no particular incentive to be bilingual in French, as opposed to (say) Spanish, Russian or Chinese. The reason is that we live on a continent where French is very much a minority language, and the language of commerce, of science and of culture is primarily English.

[Spoons]

And just to prove to our international friends (and ourselves) that Canadian politics aren't always as serious as they sometimes seem to be, may we present ... Mulroney: The Opera (http://www.mulroneytheopera.ca/).

[Euphonious Polemic]

There was a riding in the maritimes where voters received phone calls exhorting them to vote for the NDP candidate ... who had dropped out of the race. :dubious:

Interesting. Does anyone know where Gary Lunn's (http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=f70f8ede-0da9-45ea-a06c-c47817864d55)staff from the last election are?

He pulled the same dirty trick. RCMP are apparently not interested in investigating vote fraud though.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate's communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

It played out rather schizophrenically for the Conservatives, (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/elections-canada-validates-contested-student-ballot-in-guelph/article1986799/) as it turns out:

In a letter to the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Conservative Party lawyer Arthur Hamilton demanded that all votes cast on campus by students be declared null and void.

After Elections Canada declared the ballots valid the Conservative Party tried to shift the blame to someone else:

“we applaud the decision not to disenfranchise University of Guelph students because of errors by the local Returning Officer. These student voters should not suffer because of mistakes by the local election officials.”

I note that they did not say: "Sorry our lawyer tried to invalidate the student's ballots, and sorry that we tried to steal the box of votes."

[Baffle]

The conservatives have filed a complaint (http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/local/article/517010--conservatives-ask-elections-canada-to-nullify-votes-cast-at-u-of-g-wednesday) about an advance polling station at University of Guelph, claiming there was partisan material present. If their complaint is upheld, about 700 votes would be thrown out.

In a riding that is currently polling at 32.0% for the Conservatives, 35.5% for the Liberals, I can see their concern over 700 votes that, owing to the nature of the vote mob, are not likely to be for the Conservatives. However, trying to take the ballot box, as the local candidate's communications director is alleged to have done, is right out. I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

My local riding. It's been a Liberal stronghold since 1993, despite a series of lackluster representatives. It's also a riding where the Greens made an exceptionally good showing, if you're curious about the politics of the area.

I don't really have my finger on the pulse of the conservative supports in the area, but the left-wingers I know are certainly unimpressed. (Not as though they would have voted Conservative before.) But the city is expanding quite rapidly and its new neighbourhoods have a very similar character to other Toronto suburbs -- full of Toronto commuters, and disconnected from the traditional local Guelph politics (the educated, environmentalist politics typical of a university town). The polls on this one are very close, and this kind of shenanigans from a candidate's primary representative won't play well.

[RickJay]

Threehundredeight's projections as of today:

Conservatives: 152
Liberals: 73
Bloc de Separation: 50
NDP: 33

The polls are just amazingly sticky, and don't move. This is remarkable when one considers just how bad the Conservative campaign has been, with one imbecilic gaffe after another. Granted, Harper performed well in the debates, and the other parties aren't exactly lighting the world on fire, but the CPC has had an embarassment almost every other day while the Libs and Dips have been relatively gaffe-free.

If it ends up this way, Michael Ignatieff will be PM of a coalition government sometime this year. Yeah, I know he claimed he wasn't going to start up a coalition. It's bullshit. He won't SIGN a coalition agreement before the fact like Dion, Layton and Duceppe did in 2008; he'll wait until Parliament sits, vote down the government immediately, and then go to the Governor General with the support of Layton and Duceppe and ask to form a government.

Of course, the other intriguing possibility would be that if they finish at 150-153 seats, Harper could lure a few MPs to his side with goodies and Cabinet appointments. He'd do it in a heartbeat and I'd bet dollars to donuts they're already making lists of the likeliest backstabbers in the other parties.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Update on the Guelph incident (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-puts-end-to-special-ballot-voting/article1987880/) - the votes (241, not 700 as reported earlier.) will stand, but Elections Canada will put an end to the special balloting at on campus events. That's too bad, as this article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/breaking-down-canadas-youth-vote/article1748023/) in the Globe and Mail underlines the difference between voting intentions in the 18 - 24 demographic. The only party that doesn't stand to benefit from the youth vote is the Conservatives.

However, there's nothing to stop the University-based 'Vote Mobs' from converging on their local Elections Canada office for their rallies.

[Muffin]

Of course, the other intriguing possibility would be that if they finish at 150-153 seats, Harper could lure a few MPs to his side with goodies and Cabinet appointments. He'd do it in a heartbeat and I'd bet dollars to donuts they're already making lists of the likeliest backstabbers in the other parties.|It would be funny as hell if Guergis were to be elected and then courted by Harper.

[RickJay]

Update on the Guelph incident (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections-canada-puts-end-to-special-ballot-voting/article1987880/) - the votes (241, not 700 as reported earlier.) will stand, but Elections Canada will put an end to the special balloting at on campus events. That's too bad, as this article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/breaking-down-canadas-youth-vote/article1748023/) in the Globe and Mail underlines the difference between voting intentions in the 18 - 24 demographic. The only party that doesn't stand to benefit from the youth vote is the Conservatives.
Well, it's only "Too bad" if you support the Green Party, the Bloq, and, to a lesser extent, the NDP. The Liberals also poll lower with youth. So it's "Too bad" in a partisan sense. (We're also assuming that youth would vote this way if they were substantially more engaged, which is not necessarily true.)

I'd like to see more youth voting. I'd like to see more of EVERY age group voting. But, to be honest, it's the responsibility of the voters to drag their asses to the polls, and playing fast and loose with election rules, with voting stations in places where people are openly campaigning and there's election literature around, doesn't strike me as being the right way to do it.

I like the idea of voting mobs and other ways of rallying people to get to the polls, but let's worth within the rules; we have very fair and open elections and to be honest I think they way they're run should not be changed without a good reason.

Voting in Canada is easy, and if you can't find a few minutes to zip over to the local school or library or wherever, it's your own damn fault.

[Gorsnak]

Voting in Canada is easy, and if you can't find a few minutes to zip over to the local school or library or wherever, it's your own damn fault.

Are you kidding me? My polling station is two doors down and across the street! It is likely to cost me a solid 5 minutes to vote. Maybe 8 if there's a bit of a line. I won't have you making light of the sacrifice I'll be making to participate in our democracy.

[Baffle]

playing fast and loose with election rules, with voting stations in places where people are openly campaigning and there's election literature around, doesn't strike me as being the right way to do it.

I know that's the conservative spin on the events, but people who were actually present have a slightly different take on it.

From the link above: (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/elections-canada-validates-contested-student-ballot-in-guelph/article1986799/)

Ramzi Nashef, a Liberal party volunteer who was at the University Centre, disputed Mr. Hamilton’s claims that there were partisan materials near the voting station. He said Liberal and Green Party officials were initially told Elections Canada was considering the entire University Centre as the voting station, and that both parties distributed campaign literature about 200 metres away from the building.

The Elections Canada official then returned to tell them a new ruling had declared the entire campus should be free of partisan materials during voting, and both parties returned all their materials to their offices, Mr. Nashef said.

"Playing fast and loose with election rules" isn't a well-defined term, either. But Elections Canada themselves said, "All information at our disposal indicates that the votes were cast in a manner that respects the Elections Canada Act and are valid." Could you explain what you mean by your statement?

Also, for the sarcastic: Lineups snaked around the Centre’s atrium as students waited more than an hour on average to cast ballots.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Well, it's only "Too bad" if you support the Green Party, the Bloq, and, to a lesser extent, the NDP. The Liberals also poll lower with youth. So it's "Too bad" in a partisan sense. (We're also assuming that youth would vote this way if they were substantially more engaged, which is not necessarily true.)



Yes, I admit that "too bad" is a blatantly partisan remark on my part. I didn't promise to be non-partisan; I only promised to be respectful. ;) However, based on the results cited in the Globe and Mail article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/breaking-down-canadas-youth-vote/article1748023/) about the youth vote, if the only voters were those between 18 - 24, we'd end up with a Liberal minority government. (104 seats to the Liberals, 60 Bloc, 53 NDP, 46 Conservative, 43 Greens) Despite the Liberals polling lower (23.9 with the youth vote, 29.3 in the national average), that's a very different looking parliament than the one currently projected at threehundredeight.com....

It is very easy to vote in this country - between the regular polls on election day, the advance ballots, the special ballots, the possibility of arranging for voting by proxy, there's not much to it. For all that, this election is a challenge in terms of exams, moving back off campus, summer jobs for students. Anything that encourages more people to vote is all to the good of democracy, as far as I'm concerned. Advance polls and special ballots in seniors homes? Good idea! Candidates' volunteer teams running shuttle buses to and from the polling station? As long as they respect the rules regarding partisan materials in the actual polling station, Great! And I say that knowing full well the conservatives stand to benefit from getting their own supporters to and from the polls. I'd even rather someone voted conservative than that they didn't bother to vote at all. (Of course, I'd rather they voted Liberal, but you can't always get what you want, as some wise men once sang...)

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

|It would be funny as hell if Guergis were to be elected and then courted by Harper.

I can't believe I'm in the position of feeling sorry for Guergis. She's an airhead, her husband spends his summers coating the surface of stagnant ponds and as far as I can tell, she still clings to the conservative principles that made me despise her in the first place. Never mind - the RCMP cleared her of all accusations. Where's the apology? Where's the reinstatement? Instead, she has been treated in an appalling manner.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs someone to shun, he has Bev Oda.

[The Flying Dutchman]

I think bilingualism could become a non-issue in one generation if we committed to all Canadian kids learning both languages, across the country.

Every city that has a Muslim mayor, raise your hand. :D

Okay, okay, you've made your point. But here in British Columbia we've had a Sikh premier and as you know, from a Canadian perspective the terrorist threat from some the Sikhs has beem far more of a problem than some of the Muslims.

[RickJay]

I know that's the conservative spin on the events, but people who were actually present have a slightly different take on it.
I'm not saying the votes shouldn't count. But clearly, things were not done precisely the way they should be, as indicated IN THE VERY LINK YOU PROVIDE, where Elections Canada is saying that they're not going to let this sort of thing happen again. Your own cite is my cite.

As there is no evidence that the votes were not cast in good faith, they must count. You have to err on the side of letting the voter have their say. I think precisely the opposite way of the various Republicans in the USA who seem obsessed with preventing voting; while rules have to be in place, you need to tip to the side of letting the vote count, even if there's a small chance of fraud. But one of the reasons I'm confident that's the right way to do things is that we run elections really, really well here. Our elections are just phenomenally well organized, all things considered. But the thing is, it's BECAUSE of that that I can say "meh, if the odd ballot is bullshit, it'll all wash out in the end." Continuing to run them really, really well is what allows us to be pretty forgiving in this regard.

But obviously this didn't go precisely according to the rules or else Elections Canada wouldn't be sending out special instructions not to do it again. Explain to me why Elections Canada would send special instructions out to their returning officers saying "don't let this happen again" if it had been run completely according to Hoyle?

It's clear that the returning officer fucked up. However, it's equally clear hundreds of voters shouldn't have their ballots tossed because a returning officer fucked up in a way that can't be demostrated to have defrauded the results of the election. It's equally clear that the imbecile who tried to steal the ballot box should be in prison but for some reason they haven't arrested him.

Yes, I admit that "too bad" is a blatantly partisan remark on my part. I didn't promise to be non-partisan; I only promised to be respectful. However, based on the results cited in the Globe and Mail article about the youth vote, if the only voters were those between 18 - 24, we'd end up with a Liberal minority government.
Sure; with some assumptions you didn't state, that's true. And if only voters 65 and up voted we'd have a gigantic Conservative majority and legislation that everyone has to eat dinner at Swiss Chalet at 4:30. I don't want to live in that country. :)

It's also interesting, albeit meaningless, to note that if only age 18-24 voters voted that would be the worst relationship between popular votes and seat distribution in the history of Canadian general elections; the Green Party would almost tie for first in popular vote and yet would finish FIFTH in seats held.

[Baffle]

I'm not saying the votes shouldn't count. But clearly, things were not done precisely the way they should be, as indicated IN THE VERY LINK YOU PROVIDE, where Elections Canada is saying that they're not going to let this sort of thing happen again. Your own cite is my cite.

I recognize that fact, and it puzzles me. This sort of 'special ballot' station (which is different from an advance poll, and that's where Michael Sona's confusion seems to have arisen) isn't unusual, and it's been done on campus a few times in the past. I don't understand Elections Canada's ruling -- why should this be prevented at all?

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

But the problem is that the federal government enacted a law. The federal government chose the boundaries and then the municipal, small-town folks were expected to comply. In the Pakenham case the lady in question had been the Postmistress for decades. Then the feds come along and said "Sorry. You're not qualified to do your job."
So, are you saying that you believe official language policy should be determined at the local level only? Or are you just saying?

I live on the boarder.
Try not to crush him. :p

That is a matter of interest to the business, not me. And of course, the statement that "90% of the population speaks French" quite absurdly ignores the fact that linguistic minorities congregate.
I've heard it suggested that the reason why enforcement of the commercial signage provisions of the Charter operates on citizen complaints only was actually to be more lenient in places where "linguistic minorities congregate", as you put it. If no francophone, or no unilingual francophone anyway, lives in a particular place, then signage in French isn't necessarily needed there. The person making this suggestion (who supports bill 101) blamed "vigilantes" for fanning the flames of linguistic conflict by making official complaints against shop owners in places where they don't live and don't shop.

I guess I'm different in that I have some interest in, and an opinion on, about public policy concerning the freedom of expression throughout my country, not just my province of residence.
It's especially a question of the fact that as an English Canadian, you see the whole country as an entity on which you have a right of regard. To me, what Ontarians or Albertans do isn't something on which I should have more control than on what Americans do.

To be honest, it's the same difference that explains why, per mnemosyne, some English Canadians are insulted to have trouble being served in English in Quebec, while I wouldn't even expect service in French in federal government buildings in some parts of Canada.

Many people, like myself, would prefer to see the restrictive aspects of Bill 101 reversed, but don't see anything wrong with the fact that most people in Quebec speak French or conduct their personal lives and business in French. You seem to assume, again and again, that opposition to the fomer indicates some sort of antipathy to the latter.
Many Quebecers consider that bill 101 is what first allowed us to conduct our (public) personal lives and do business in French in Quebec, and still allows us to do it now. So hostility to one is seen as hostility to the other. I'm not saying I agree completely, but that's the idea.

I think bilingualism could become a non-issue in one generation if we committed to all Canadian kids learning both languages, across the country.
Canadian kids already learn the other official language in school. But even if they have good teachers (which isn't certain), if they're not to use the language, they're not going to retain it. If you think a fully bilingual populace is what we should be striving for, what you should be supporting is exchange programs for young Canadians to go develop their language skills elsewhere in the country. (Interestingly, that sounds like the kind of thing Trudeau and his kin would have proposed.)

You'd be astonished how seldom lines like 'Je mange l'odeur de tes cuisses.' or 'Où dois-je naturaliser le pétrole de mon cœur?' come up in everyday conversation... (Both actual lines from 'Le Vampire et la nymphomane', music by Serge Provost to a text by Claude Gauvreau.) :)
I guess you're just not romantic enough. :p

Malthus, I'll be answering you tomorrow.

[RickJay]

It's especially a question of the fact that as an English Canadian...
Absolute horse shit. It's simply that I am Canadian, full stop, and matters of civil rights of other Canadians are of interest to me. I'm a citizen of this country and civil rights are a rather important issue to a concerned citizen.

The division between French and English, in terms of civil rights, is of no concern to me.

To be honest, it's the same difference that explains why, per mnemosyne, some English Canadians are insulted to have trouble being served in English in Quebec...
I know nobody like that and I certainly am not one of them. There's absolutely no logical connection between my objection to some of the provisions of Bill 101 and whether or not I can be served in English at a store in Riviere-Du-Loup. I can't even begin to draw any sort of logical thread between them.

Perhaps you know such people or have heard of them. I haven't, and I'm sorry, but not only can I not speak for these people, I don't even comprehend them and don't understand the connection. Nobody in this thread has complained about not being able to get English service in a store in Quebec. So why're you even bringing it up? What does it have to do with the issue at hand?

[Baffle]

Absolute horse shit.

I'm glad you and I have something upon which we can agree. ;)

[RickJay]

In terms of the polls, threehundredeight is still reporting an estimnte of:

CPC - 152
Liberal - 73
Bloc - 50
NDP - 33

In an interesting note, however, they report the "ceiling" for the parties - e.g. how well they COULD do if things go very well in May 2 for them - as being highly favourable for the Conservatives; whereas the Tories could peak out at 178 seats, the Liberal ceiling is at 101 (which puts the CPC at 135, essentially not a lot different from what they have now.) This is a significant drop for the Liberals' upper end estimates, which means that their odds of actually winning the election are going from "slim" to "none."

I think it's obvious, really, what will happen if the Conservatives win a minority; Parliament will sit, the Liberals will immediately call for a vote of non confidence, the opposition will unanimously vote the government down, and Ignatieff will go to the G-G and demand to be made Prime Minister. It's been the plan all along. I don't see how there's any other reational explanation for why the Liberals wanted an election now; no serious observer, at any point in the last year, has ever thought they could win a plurality of seats in an election. Ignatieff has chosen his words carefully, saying the party that wins the most seats gets "a chance" to form a government, but he has no plans to allow it to survive. There's no formal coalition, but I'd bet good money there's a gentleman's agreement already in place, or that the agreement (which by now has already been negotiated) will come only after the vote of non confidence and Ignatieff will say "Well, gosh, what a surprise this is. I really honestly meant no coalition before but by golly, now I have no choice." Trust me; the Liberals plan to rule no matter how many seats they win.

One of the cornerstones of the Liberal campaign, that there's no coalition plan, is 100% lie. You'll see.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Just supposing what you say turns out to be true. For the record, I have no reason to believe that Michael Ignatieff is a liar, I'm just going along with you for the sake of following through on your above post.

If Michael Ignatieff did indeed pull the plug on a Conservative minority government and form a (legal) coalition government, in a massive breach of his election promise not to, why is that any worse than -

contempt of parliament
misinforming the Canadian people about Auditor-General's report on the G8/G20
pork-barrelling on an unimaginable scale in Tony Clement's riding
disproportionate spending on conservative ridings generally
stacking the senate more than any other prime minister in Canadian history
proroguing parliament to avoid a non-confidence motion
lying to parliament about the alteration of documents
proroguing parliament to avoid having to give information about the torture of Afghan detainees
using the senate as a rubber stamp to kill a bill passed by the House of Commons

or any of the other shit Harper did (http://shitharperdid.ca.nyud.net/)?

My problem with the conservatives is two fold - I don't believe in the ends, and I don't believe in the means. With the liberals, I believe in the ends, and the above discussion of the means is purely hypothetical.

Bottom line - can you look me in the eye, hold your head up and tell me you approve of everything the conservatives have done and the way they have done it? Because as far as I'm concerned, this is Nixon without a diplomatic coup in China...

With Stephen Harper, you know you're getting a liar who claims he's telling the truth.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Jesus Christ, the jets (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html) don't even come with engines? Where'd we get them from, an IKEA in the US?

[Gorsnak]

One of the cornerstones of the Liberal campaign, that there's no coalition plan, is 100% lie. You'll see.
I would just point out that you were certain, dead certain, that Paul Martin wouldn't call an election following the release of the Gomery Commission report in 2006.

[Lord Feldon]

Has Ignatieff ever said that he would refuse to lead a minority government as the leader of the second-largest party, or has he chosen his words more carefully and only said that he wouldn't form a coalition?

[Gorsnak]

Has Ignatieff ever said that he would refuse to lead a minority government as the leader of the second-largest party, or has he chosen his words more carefully and only said that he wouldn't form a coalition?

I'm not sure it's terribly relevant. Consider the following:

1) The Tories are very close to having sufficient support to win a majority.
2) If the Tories win ~150 seats as projected, lose a confidence vote, and the Liberals try to form a minority government with only informal support from the NDP and Bloc, the situation will be extremely fragile. I would give such a government less than 6 months at the outside, and more likely less than 3 months before it loses a confidence vote.
3) Many Canadian voters are tired of endless elections that don't produce a result. Another election before the end of the year would result in the party or parties viewed as responsible being punished to some extent. Almost inevitably that would be the Liberals and NDP, and even a small swing away from those parties pushes the Tories into majority territory.
4) Therefore, voting non-confidence in a large Tory minority government in the early days would have as its most likely outcome a small Tory majority government before the end of the year.

That sequence of events would be the end of Ignatieff's political career. The only way I can see him trying to become PM from the second place position is if 1) he has the hubris to believe he can convince by eloquence and charisma the Bloc and NDP to bend to his will for most of a full term, or 2) he just really, really wants to live at 24 Sussex, even if it's only a couple weeks. (1) may be possible, though I don't think he's dumb enough to believe it myself. (2) seems very unlikely to me.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
I think it's obvious, really, what will happen if the Conservatives win a minority; Parliament will sit, the Liberals will immediately call for a vote of non confidence, the opposition will unanimously vote the government down, and Ignatieff will go to the G-G and demand to be made Prime Minister. It's been the plan all along. I don't see how there's any other reational explanation for why the Liberals wanted an election now;<snip>

One of the cornerstones of the Liberal campaign, that there's no coalition plan, is 100% lie. You'll see.I agree with this. The only thing I'm not sure about is that the Governor General will automatically go along with the coalition government. Can the Governor General choose which government will govern?

I'm not sure it's terribly relevant. Consider the following:

1) The Tories are very close to having sufficient support to win a majority.
2) If the Tories win ~150 seats as projected, lose a confidence vote, and the Liberals try to form a minority government with only informal support from the NDP and Bloc, the situation will be extremely fragile. I would give such a government less than 6 months at the outside, and more likely less than 3 months before it loses a confidence vote.
3) Many Canadian voters are tired of endless elections that don't produce a result. Another election before the end of the year would result in the party or parties viewed as responsible being punished to some extent. Almost inevitably that would be the Liberals and NDP, and even a small swing away from those parties pushes the Tories into majority territory.
4) Therefore, voting non-confidence in a large Tory minority government in the early days would have as its most likely outcome a small Tory majority government before the end of the year.

That sequence of events would be the end of Ignatieff's political career. The only way I can see him trying to become PM from the second place position is if 1) he has the hubris to believe he can convince by eloquence and charisma the Bloc and NDP to bend to his will for most of a full term, or 2) he just really, really wants to live at 24 Sussex, even if it's only a couple weeks. (1) may be possible, though I don't think he's dumb enough to believe it myself. (2) seems very unlikely to me.I agree with this, too, but I believe that Ignatieff is desperate to put "Prime Minister of Canada" on his resume. I could be wrong because of course I don't know what's going on in his head, but that's my read on him - if he doesn't make Prime Minister in this go, he's gone.

[Baffle]

Ignatieff is desperate to put "Prime Minister of Canada" on his resume.

The only current federal politician for whom this isn't true, is the one who already has it on his resume.

And he certainly felt this way in 2004.

What's your point?

[Rysto]

The Liberals would be stupid to try and run a minority government that requires the support of the Bloc. The Bloc will yank the rug out at a time when it's best for them politically -- just ask Paul Martin.

I really don't think that the Liberals will try it. Upthread somebody posted a link to a great article in Maclean's that explained the Liberals' position: Ignatieff polls terribly among people who don't follow politics but the numbers are much better for him among people who do follow politics. The Liberals were hoping that by putting him and his policies front-and-centre that he'd be able to gain some support. Plus, the longer they put off an election, the more time they were giving the better-funded Conservatives to set the tone of the conversation.

Total wishful thinking, of course. People aren't going to pay attention to politics unless there's a compelling reason for them to do so.

I agree with this. The only thing I'm not sure about is that the Governor General will automatically go along with the coalition government. Can the Governor General choose which government will govern?
Are you so anxious to see your team that you'd throw away our democracy? Parliament decides which government will govern.

[Baffle]

People aren't going to pay attention to politics unless there's a compelling reason for them to do so.
Really? What's your compelling reason?

[RickJay]

I would just point out that you were certain, dead certain, that Paul Martin wouldn't call an election following the release of the Gomery Commission report in 2006.
The election in 2006 was forced by a vote of non confidence that took place before the full Gomery report could be released (Martin had promised to call an election within one month of the full report's release, but by then Stephen Harper was Prime Minister) so you can't say I was wrong. We'll never know now.

I agree with this. The only thing I'm not sure about is that the Governor General will automatically go along with the coalition government. Can the Governor General choose which government will govern?
It would be highly inappropriate for the Governor-General to not give the Liberals a chance to form a government if the Liberals/NDP/Bloc immediately refuse to give the CPC confidence. Calling another election would be ridiculous and, IIRC, completely without precedent.

Ignatieff would be a slimeball to say one thing and do another (and I'm convinced he's a slimeball) but the Governor-General must act according to the Constitution, both written and unwritten, and it says that if the party with the most seats can't get the confidence of Parliament, and the party with the second most seats think they can, you give them their shot.

What the heck else is he supposed to do?

[Cat Whisperer]

The only current federal politician for whom this isn't true, is the one who already has it on his resume.

And he certainly felt this way in 2004.

What's your point?Yeah, if you're saying that they're all in it for the glory, I suppose you're right.

<snip>
Are you so anxious to see your team that you'd throw away our democracy? Parliament decides which government will govern.I think you're seeing things that aren't there - I didn't say anything about what I wanted - I was talking about possibilities.

<snip>
It would be highly inappropriate for the Governor-General to not give the Liberals a chance to form a government if the Liberals/NDP/Bloc immediately refuse to give the CPC confidence. Calling another election would be ridiculous and, IIRC, completely without precedent.

Ignatieff would be a slimeball to say one thing and do another (and I'm convinced he's a slimeball) but the Governor-General must act according to the Constitution, both written and unwritten, and it says that if the party with the most seats can't get the confidence of Parliament, and the party with the second most seats think they can, you give them their shot.I guess that answers my question.

What the heck else is he supposed to do?I dunno; that's why I asked the question. If we have to go through all of this again in six months, I suppose the Governor General knows as well as all of us that it won't please anyone, but I guess we're all bound by constitutional law.

[Gorsnak]

The election in 2006 was forced by a vote of non confidence that took place before the full Gomery report could be released (Martin had promised to call an election within one month of the full report's release, but by then Stephen Harper was Prime Minister) so you can't say I was wrong. We'll never know now.

Well, except that you also thought it "very unlikely" that the Liberals would lose a non-confidence vote:
That's my point. It's really not clear.

Regrettably, the one policy Stephen Harper has clearly come out for is that he opposes gay marriage - a loser's position, one that has absolutely zero chance of winning out. I cannot stress this enough; the likelihood that gay marriage will be a full reality in Canada is absolutely one hundred percent. It is a done deal. Harper has placed his party on what is absolutely, totally, unquestionably guaranteed to be the wrong side of the issue. It is a political gaffe of stupefying proportions. The tide of history and opinion absolutely will make gay marriage a reality in Canada; it is as certain as the Sun rising in the east. He was a bloody fool to stomp his feet on the other side of that fence.

But the Conservatives can recover from that error... if they would just allow themselves to be a true opposition party for a few years, as opposed to their usual ongoing efforts to reverse the result of the last election.

If the Conservatives were smart they never would have even attempted the last nonconfidence vote; had it passed they likely would have bene punished at the polls. Their smart move now is to play a proper Opposition role and wait for the Liberals to break their promise to hold an election after the Gomery report, which is virtually certain. When the Liberals come out with some lame-ass excuse for not holding the election they promised, one of two things will happen;

1. (The likely scenario) The NDP, so filled with pride that they're sort of kind of part of a government if you squint your eyes and look at them sideways, will also come up with some lame rationalization for the broken promise. Both the Liberals and NDP will look bad. Or,

2. (Very unlikely) Either the NDP, or a sufficient combination of irate backbenchers, will turn on the Liberals for breaking the election promise, the government will fall in disgrace, and the Conservatives will be in a position to pick up the most pieces.

Assuming #1 holds true, the Conservatives would be smart NOT to attempt another nonconfidence vote. Just let the busted election promise sit there like a fart at a dinner party. If the Conservatives play the next 3 years cool and reserved, Paul Martin will hand them many votes through sheer ineptitude. The Conservatives need to stake out a clear platform that includes constructive planks, not the idiot anti-gay-marriage stance that amounts to trying to hold back a hurricane.(link to post) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6291650&postcount=21)

I hope this doesn't come off as just trying to score a debate point - rather your pronouncement that it's 100% certain that the Liberals are going to try to form a coalition minority government strongly reminds me of this.

[Grey]

Ideology aside the obvious solution is for a Conservative/Liberal coalition. Hell we've basically had a pseudo version of it already. The interesting piece would be if it happens before or after a vote of confidence.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

You can find some anywhere. The problem is that you have proposed a cause-and-effect realationship which has no predictive power - or rather, the real-world evidence is against it.
It may be true that living in a diverse place forces one to gain some tolerance. But on the face of it, of course ethnic conflicts happen in places where more than one ethnicity is found. How could it be otherwise?

I disagree. Having a "very uniform population" may lead to an increase in bigotry, which is then vented upon those rare persons who are not of the majority - hence cross-burnings on lawns and the like are more likely where the population is mostly of one majority ethnicity
You may believe I don't have any evidence for my claims, but what is your evidence for this? You're jumping straight to crosses burning on lawns, while it's equally if not more likely that your hypothetical person who doesn't know about cultural differences would just find his new neighbours strange and either avoid them or seek to understand them.

You are simply wrong. Try hanging out in my neighbourhood this summer, and catch the Ukranian festival that closes off the street.
And what about this Ukrainian festival? I'm sure I can go there, buy bowls of borscht and look at dancers performing in traditional costume. They probably even have bands playing traditional songs in Ukrainian. How does this invalidate anything I've said? The "Ukrainians" living in your neighbourhood are as Canadian as you, and what is the important part, in the same way you are. They have a certain folk baggage that may not be from Canada, but what part of their identity does that really represent? In most regards they're Canadians just like you.

What you miss is that people are quite capable of having multiple levels of identity and allegiance - they idenify as (say) Ukranian in ethnicity and culture, while still being "proud Canadians" in nationality.
This reminds me of Americans who claim to be "Irish" or "Italian" or "Polish" despite having perhaps one grandparent or great-grandparent of that ethnicity, never actually have been in their claimed country of origin and not even speaking the language. I'm actually in Italy at the moment, and believe me it looks nothing like Jersey Shore. :p Dual allegiances do happen, but mostly with first generation immigrants who actually have memories of their old country, who have family living there and who do go back there from time to time. So yes, I know that it exists. Your example's not the best though; as I understand it Ukrainian immigration to Canada was more of a late 19th-early 20th century phenomenon, so at this point I'll need a fairly high level of proof if you want to convince me that your Ukrainians are anything else than Canadians with some spice.

Now we're at the point where you started insulting me and my people based on your faulty understanding of us, just right after I'd said this is what I disliked the most about English Canadians. You may need to listen to me more than you'd have thought.

In Quebec this isn't an issue (or if it is, it is the whole issue): that many people in Quebec want their nationality to line up neatly with their ethnicity.
And who wants that, pray tell? (And please don't answer "separatists", you'll look like a bad caricature.) Do you think Quebec isn't ethnically diverse? I've got plenty of colleagues who are born in other countries, and who are Quebecers in a way, but something else in another way. Sure, the province of Quebec or even Montreal may not be as ethnically diverse as Toronto, but in a sense we may even have more in terms of dual allegiances than you. With both a long-standing francophone and anglophone community, both of which are competing for the integration of immigrants, we cannot be sure what in three generations will be the culture, language and outlook on life of an immigrant's descendents. In Toronto it's much less in question.

People from Quebec often seem to view non-Quebec Canadians in the same light, as their mirror-image - your post is a perfect example of this - as "ethnically Canadian", a Canadian "people" who identify themselves as "Anglos" as much as some Quebec folks identify themselves as "Québécois".
I didn't say "anglos". You're the one who's putting words in my mouth. I said Canadians. Of course English is the common language of Canada, but that doesn't make all of you White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You may believe Canadian culture is just the sum (or average, or median, or perhaps even standard deviation ;) ) of the cultures of all countries whence Canadians come from, but trust me there is a substrate Canadian culture, that's been influenced by other cultures to be sure, but that's remained there.

And if in your ignorance you believe that in Quebec, we're trying hard to keep our culture "pure" as it was in 1960, or 1900, or hey, perhaps even back before the evil English came in 1759, I'll have you know that the Quiet Revolution, which occurred after 1960, is considered one of the founding events of modern Quebec. We've changed a lot in the last few decades and we're proud of it. So yes Malthus, despite what you may believe, there is such a thing as a Canadian culture, and there is such a thing as a Quebec culture; they are not fixed but change over time, and yes both of them eventually get influenced by foreign cultures.

But such is not the case. Many if not most outside of Quebec have multiple levels of definitions for themselves - whether provincial (Newfoundlanders for example), or ethnic-religious (Jewish), or by culture or origin (Ukranian, Jamacan). Their view of being "Canadian" has less to do with self-idenity as an ethnic group, and more to do with allegiance to a particular vision of how society ought to be run, a particular set of laws and institutions which, for many, created a safe haven from the hell-holes they or their ancestors fled from. Often, these hell-holes were created by folks who wished to create ethnic conformity (for example, in Europe).
I'm sorry but that's just cheerleading for Canada (or Toronto?); patting yourself on the back about how you're so open-minded and have managed to build an identity based on nothing but a civil vision, while allowing people to retain their previous ethnic/national identities, unlike (insert sneer) in Europe or Quebec. Americans do the same thing, they claim that their country has no substrate culture but is only made of the best things about all other countries in the world, brought over there by those countries' best minds who were fleeing oppression and looking for liberty. I'm not buying it when Americans are claiming it, and neither am I when you're claiming it. I'm not denying that the US and (English) Canada are countries that are based on immigration. But they're not the only ones, and at this point in time even European countries, which Americans still see as monocultures, now receive massive numbers of immigrants. And of course ethnic conflicts are definitely not absent from Canadian and American history.

Hence the simmering dispute with Quebec. It is not, reagardless of what some people from Quebec may think, a symmetric ethic conflict between two big ethnicities, defined primarily by language. It is, rather, a conflict over how society ought to be ordered - as ethnic enclaves, or as a society where ethnicity is irrelevant.
So you think Quebecers think society should be a collection of ethnic enclaves. Please educate yourself.

Bilingualsim is a well-intentioned but doomed compromise. Doomed, because really aside from gov't coercion or inherent interest in the language there is no particular incentive to be bilingual in French, as opposed to (say) Spanish, Russian or Chinese. The reason is that we live on a continent where French is very much a minority language, and the language of commerce, of science and of culture is primarily English.
And I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds vaguely threatening, as if we should realise that our language is doomed, DOOMED I say, because in North America it's a minority language and not very much used for inter-community exchanges. I just don't see the link from one to the other, sorry. Bilingualism is about ensuring that citizens can be served in a certain number (well, two in the case of bilingualism) of languages, not about imposing a particular language for international commerce.

[RickJay]

Well, except that you also thought it "very unlikely" that the Liberals would lose a non-confidence vote:
... If in fact the government survived long enough to react to the Gomery report, which it did not. And what of this implication of yours that I incorrectly predicted something that in fact never came to pass either way?

If we're now digging into stuff from five or six years ago and parsing the sentences to construct hypotheticals that allow us to suggest each other is incorrect, would you mind giving me a few days to go through your posts from 2004-2006?

Or else we could talk about the 2011 election. Your call.

[straight man]

Ideology aside the obvious solution is for a Conservative/Liberal coalition. Hell we've basically had a pseudo version of it already. The interesting piece would be if it happens before or after a vote of confidence.
It would be the end of the Liberal Party — they would serve no role, being the second largest party in Parliament yet not an opposition party, so the NDP would take over that role and, in the next election, those votes.

Also, I don't think the Tories and the Grits could get along well enough to form a coalition government. As an anecdote, I've met Stéphane Dion since he ceased to be leader of the party in a minimally formal setting, and it was striking to me just how much he hated the Conservative Party. Granted, he's not the leader anymore, but it seemed as if his feelings were if anything mild by the party's standards.

[Gorsnak]

... If in fact the government survived long enough to react to the Gomery report, which it did not. And what of this implication of yours that I incorrectly predicted something that in fact never came to pass either way?

If we're now digging into stuff from five or six years ago and parsing the sentences to construct hypotheticals that allow us to suggest each other is incorrect, would you mind giving me a few days to go through your posts from 2004-2006?

Or else we could talk about the 2011 election. Your call.

All I'm saying is that this isn't the first time you've been absolutely, 100% certain that a very public, very prominent commitment by the leader of the Liberal Party is a total lie, and that the plan all along has been for it to be a lie. It wasn't (and couldn't be) true then, and it isn't true now. I only brought this up because I find your insistence in both these cases to be baffling, as I otherwise find your political commentary to be quite astute. So I'm going to ask: on what grounds do you think Ignatieff is lying about a coalition? Why would he torch his own credibility in such a way? If the plan all along is to form a coalition, why on earth wouldn't they proceed in a way that won't hand the Tories a majority mandate within the year? Do you honestly think Iggy is so mind-numbingly stupid as to give the Tories that kind of ammunition?

[Frank]

I can see RickJay's scenario occurring if, and only if, the election is a lot closer that polls indicate. If the Conservatives wind up with about 145 seats or more, and the Liberals wind up with about half that, it won't happen.

[RickJay]

All I'm saying is that this isn't the first time you've been absolutely, 100% certain that a very public, very prominent commitment by the leader of the Liberal Party is a total lie, and that the plan all along has been for it to be a lie. It wasn't (and couldn't be) true then
You don't know if it was true or not because we never got a chance to find out.

... and it isn't true now.
Twenty bucks says it is. I'm happy to lose $20, but I'm pretty sure about this one.

If the Conservatives win a minority (a plurality of seats, but not more than 153) and Michael Ignatieff, in very short order, orchestrates a vote of non confidence and goes to the G-G asking to form a government, you pay me $20.

If the Conservatives win a minority as defined above but Ignatieff does not do this, I pay you $20.

If the Conservatives do not win a minority the bet is null.

Deal? Come on, let's have something riding on this.

I only brought this up because I find your insistence in both these cases to be baffling, as I otherwise find your political commentary to be quite astute. So I'm going to ask: on what grounds do you think Ignatieff is lying about a coalition? Why would he torch his own credibility in such a way?
To become Prime Minister, of course.

Ignatieff has used weasel words the entire time to that he can technically not lie. Note his use of words during the debate; the leader who wins a minority gets to TRY first.

So he'll follow that to the letter; he will allow Stephen Harper to "try," will prevent it, and then he can honestly say he let Harper "try." He can also say with a straight face that there was no coalition planned prior to the election (I suspect there is but they're smart enough not to publicize it) and that the coalition deal theyll come up with then is simply a necessity of the time. He will say Stephen Harper forced him into it, so he simply had no choice.

One theory is that Ignatieff will immediately call for a vote of non confidence, saying that he simply cannot offer confidence to a government that was caught in "contempt of Parliament." I don't think it will happen that way, though. I think he'll do it on the budget vote.

As to why he'd do this, I think Ignatieff- quite correctly, in my opinion - believes this election is his one chance to rule. Banking that the coalition will last long enough for public anger to subside is risky, I will grant; if it falls in six months you're probably right that the Tories would win a majority, but if he can makeit last longer the risk subsides with every passing day.

If this ISN'T his plan, why did the Liberals pick this time to call an election? The Liberal line is oh, gosh, we just couldn't allow these horrible offenses to go unpunsihed, but I do not for one instant believe a major political party would call an election they knew they were going to lose solely on principle. Every sane person in the country knew their chances of winning this election were horribly slim. Ignatieff has advisors and pollsters on staff who can show him the numbers.

So here are the possibilities:

1. The Liberals chose to call the election out of a saintly regard for openness and democracy they certainly didn't much care about when they were in power even though it was a hill they knew they would die on at the polls, or

2. They had a plan to take power.

Ignatieff isn't a young man and his party isn't going to let him sit around at 28% support forever. He's not going to get another chance after this one.

[Baffle]

The whole thing is pretty dumb to begin with. As if 'Coalition' were a bad word. The UK is currently under a coalition government, even. We've had them before in Canadian history. I can't believe the Canadian people will let Stephen Harper and his apparatus actually demonize cooperation.

Really, I think they're afraid the NDP and Liberals might learn they have a lot of common ground. I wonder if it's possible to unite what have become Canada's two left-wing parties. 'Unite the left' doesn't really have a nice ring to it though.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

1. The Liberals chose to call the election out of a saintly regard for openness and democracy they certainly didn't much care about when they were in power even though it was a hill they knew they would die on at the polls, or

2. They had a plan to take power.

Ignatieff isn't a young man and his party isn't going to let him sit around at 28% support forever. He's not going to get another chance after this one.


I'm sorry - as one of the people who wrote to Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton urging them to bring down the government, I can tell you that my democracy does not include the tactics of the conservative party. I believe the conservatives should not be re-elected based on their record in office. I'm deeply disappointed that these issues have not resulted in the Liberal majority numbers I believe we desperately need. However, there are still two weeks to go in the campaign, and there is still the possibility of Stephen Harper using a baby as a human shield.

So yes, I'll take #1, hold the sarcasm, and I'll PM my address for you to send my $20. when your scenario doesn't come to pass. Meanwhile, I'll go back to stressing the positive things about the Liberal platform and the negative things about the Conservatives' record and their platform.

By the way, can you honestly say you admire the Conservatives' tactics? That they deserve to be re-elected after the lies and the contempt?

[RickJay]

I'mBy the way, can you honestly say you admire the Conservatives' tactics? That they deserve to be re-elected after the lies and the contempt?
1. No.

2. Nobody "deserves" to be elected to office. It's a privilege, not an entitlement. Hell, it's not even that - it's a job you're hired to.

I don't particularly agree with the notion that the Conservatives should not be elected, irrespective of anything else, because of the contempt of Parliament ruling; every government Canada has that lasts longer than a caretaker government pulls slimy shit. It is a factor in making we want to vote for another party. It's not the only factor I consider, though. Similarly, I would not say the Liberals don't deserve to be elected solely because they have an incoherent defense policy, or that the NDP doesn't deserve it because some of their fiscal ideas are silly or that the Green Party doesn't deserve it because Elizabeth May is a backstabber. I am not a one issue voter; I think you have to take the entire package of evidence.

I'm going to vote towards the result that I think is best for Canada - including platform, personality, the local MP, likely long term strategic results, stuff that isn't in the platform, and so on. I am not voting for who "deserves" it.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

The local candidate for whom I shall vote deserves that vote because she or he is the strongest candidate representing the party whose platform I agree with and whose record I support. If you would prefer 'merits', 'has earned', 'should get' - I don't care, but that's purely a matter of semantics. I would also say that a good worker 'deserves' a raise while a bad one 'deserves' to be fired. Someone applying for a job either deserves the job or doesn't.

I could never vote for a candidate for the BQ - even if I agreed with everything else that person and that party stood for, I could never do it because I disagree so strongly with the separatist cause. Likewise the issue of integrity and RealPolitik. If indeed every government Canada has that lasts longer than a caretaker government pulls slimy shit then it is our God-damned fault for letting them get away with that slimy shit. I don't let people working for me lie to me, whether it's my contractor, the dog walker or my Prime Minister. You work for me, I expect honesty. You show me contempt, I show you the door.

It doesn't help them that there are no issues where I agree with the Conservative platform. As I said earlier, I don't like the ends and I don't like the means.

[Gorsnak]

You don't know if it was true or not because we never got a chance to find out.
Part of your claim was that Martin would most likely get away with it without a non-confidence vote, and that was demonstrated to be false. And given that he wasn't going to get away without a non-confidence vote he would have to have been insane to not call an election. There was going to be an election. His choice was between a campaign where he'd broken his high profile promise and one where he hadn't.
Twenty bucks says it is. I'm happy to lose $20, but I'm pretty sure about this one.

If the Conservatives win a minority (a plurality of seats, but not more than 153) and Michael Ignatieff, in very short order, orchestrates a vote of non confidence and goes to the G-G asking to form a government, you pay me $20.

If the Conservatives win a minority as defined above but Ignatieff does not do this, I pay you $20.

If the Conservatives do not win a minority the bet is null.

Deal? Come on, let's have something riding on this.
Wait just a minute. Voting non-confidence and asking to form government is not the same as a coalition. A coalition requires some sort of agreement between the erstwhile opposition parties. That is what Ignatieff has denied, that denial is what you have called a lie, and for it to be a lie there would have to be some sort of formal agreement between the Libs, NDP, and Bloc. I'll take you up on the bet if the condition is a coalition, but not if it's just a Liberal minority with no coalition. If all you're saying is that the Liberals will attempt to defeat the government and then try to stay alive as a minority, that I'll believe may be a possibility. But that wouldn't be a coalition, and I can't fathom why you'd think that would be breaking the pledge not to form a coalition. Have we just been through 4 years of Conservative coalition governments?

Actually, I think the most likely outcome if the Tories win the ~150 seats they're currently projected to is Ignatieff being turfed before he gets a chance to engineer a defeat of the government, and another 2 years of the Liberals scrounging around for a leader and ducking issues because they don't want to trigger another election.

[RickJay]

Wait just a minute. Voting non-confidence and asking to form government is not the same as a coalition. A coalition requires some sort of agreement between the erstwhile opposition parties.
My prediction is there'll be a coalition. I think the likeliest way it will be created is that once the election is over and a Conservative minority government is created, the government will be promptly defeated, and an agreement will be put in place at that point (or, in fact, an existing agreement will be unveiled as if it were a new agreement.)

Actually, I think the most likely outcome if the Tories win the ~150 seats they're currently projected to is Ignatieff being turfed before he gets a chance to engineer a defeat of the government...
I concede, though, that this is also possible - unlikely, I think, but possible, a scenario I probably didn't put enough stock into. Irrespective of what Ignatieff has already agreed to with the NDP and Bloc - and I am pretty sure the agreement already exists in principle - the opportunity to stage a party coup and install a new leader might be too tempting for some to pass up.

What I think would probably hold the Liberals back from this is new-leader fatigue. Surely they don't want to go through that this quickly. And to be honest, I'm not sure who the new leader would be. Party coups usually take place when there is an obvious usurper lying in wait - Mulroney, Martin, Ignatieff himself.

His choice was between a campaign where he'd broken his high profile promise and one where he hadn't.
You keep implying Martin called the 2006 election of his own accord. He did not; the election was not his choice at all. The condition necessary for my prediction at that time to be judged true OR false never happened and so you cannot say I was right or wrong. Frankly, it's old news and I think we should drop it. You're trying to make this thread about me, and to be honest I don't like it, I don't think your criticisms are on target, I don't think it's on topic, and it's derailing the thread. Please stop.

[Malthus]

It may be true that living in a diverse place forces one to gain some tolerance. But on the face of it, of course ethnic conflicts happen in places where more than one ethnicity is found. How could it be otherwise?

Easily. Think of the places in Europe where the greatest ethnic hatreds were to be found. Some of them were in places ethnically mixed (such as the balkans); others, in places relatively ethnically "pure", such as Germany.


You may believe I don't have any evidence for my claims, but what is your evidence for this? You're jumping straight to crosses burning on lawns, while it's equally if not more likely that your hypothetical person who doesn't know about cultural differences would just find his new neighbours strange and either avoid them or seek to understand them.


And what about this Ukrainian festival? I'm sure I can go there, buy bowls of borscht and look at dancers performing in traditional costume. They probably even have bands playing traditional songs in Ukrainian. How does this invalidate anything I've said? The "Ukrainians" living in your neighbourhood are as Canadian as you, and what is the important part, in the same way you are. They have a certain folk baggage that may not be from Canada, but what part of their identity does that really represent? In most regards they're Canadians just like you.


This reminds me of Americans who claim to be "Irish" or "Italian" or "Polish" despite having perhaps one grandparent or great-grandparent of that ethnicity, never actually have been in their claimed country of origin and not even speaking the language. I'm actually in Italy at the moment, and believe me it looks nothing like Jersey Shore. :p Dual allegiances do happen, but mostly with first generation immigrants who actually have memories of their old country, who have family living there and who do go back there from time to time. So yes, I know that it exists. Your example's not the best though; as I understand it Ukrainian immigration to Canada was more of a late 19th-early 20th century phenomenon, so at this point I'll need a fairly high level of proof if you want to convince me that your Ukrainians are anything else than Canadians with some spice.

So, you are unwilling to allow others to self-identify? Why not?

BTW my mother in law immigrated from Ukraine in the 1950s.

Now we're at the point where you started insulting me and my people based on your faulty understanding of us, just right after I'd said this is what I disliked the most about English Canadians. You may need to listen to me more than you'd have thought.

What "insult"? The whole point of being a "nation" in an ethno-nationalistic sense is that. Look at what you said: "my people".

It isn't an "insult", it's a description.

Of course, if you find having the conversation "insulting", there is really no more to be said.

And who wants that, pray tell? (And please don't answer "separatists", you'll look like a bad caricature.) Do you think Quebec isn't ethnically diverse? I've got plenty of colleagues who are born in other countries, and who are Quebecers in a way, but something else in another way. Sure, the province of Quebec or even Montreal may not be as ethnically diverse as Toronto, but in a sense we may even have more in terms of dual allegiances than you. With both a long-standing francophone and anglophone community, both of which are competing for the integration of immigrants, we cannot be sure what in three generations will be the culture, language and outlook on life of an immigrant's descendents. In Toronto it's much less in question.

Look at what you are saying. You are positing two different ethno-linguistic groups "competing for the integration of immigrants" (your terms, not mine). Obviously, in your society these are the choices.

They are not the choices everywhere. They are not the choices I see around me.

You are attempting to squeeze the whole country into the paradigm you see in your province - so that everyone outside Qubec is simply the "anglophone community" writ large.

But it is not so.

I didn't say "anglos". You're the one who's putting words in my mouth. I said Canadians. Of course English is the common language of Canada, but that doesn't make all of you White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You may believe Canadian culture is just the sum (or average, or median, or perhaps even standard deviation ;) ) of the cultures of all countries whence Canadians come from, but trust me there is a substrate Canadian culture, that's been influenced by other cultures to be sure, but that's remained there.

And if in your ignorance you believe that in Quebec, we're trying hard to keep our culture "pure" as it was in 1960, or 1900, or hey, perhaps even back before the evil English came in 1759, I'll have you know that the Quiet Revolution, which occurred after 1960, is considered one of the founding events of modern Quebec. We've changed a lot in the last few decades and we're proud of it. So yes Malthus, despite what you may believe, there is such a thing as a Canadian culture, and there is such a thing as a Quebec culture; they are not fixed but change over time, and yes both of them eventually get influenced by foreign cultures.

As I said above, the oppositional dichotomy you think exists (anglophone "Canadian" culture vs. francophone) isn't the important aspect of self-identity to most non-Quebec Canadians.

We, too, have changed (and we are proud of it). Your view of us seems stuck in the past.

I'm sorry but that's just cheerleading for Canada (or Toronto?); patting yourself on the back about how you're so open-minded and have managed to build an identity based on nothing but a civil vision, while allowing people to retain their previous ethnic/national identities, unlike (insert sneer) in Europe or Quebec. Americans do the same thing, they claim that their country has no substrate culture but is only made of the best things about all other countries in the world, brought over there by those countries' best minds who were fleeing oppression and looking for liberty. I'm not buying it when Americans are claiming it, and neither am I when you're claiming it. I'm not denying that the US and (English) Canada are countries that are based on immigration. But they're not the only ones, and at this point in time even European countries, which Americans still see as monocultures, now receive massive numbers of immigrants. And of course ethnic conflicts are definitely not absent from Canadian and American history.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. I find it impressive and unfortunate that you feel the need to "insert a sneer" where none was ment.

Clearly, you are not going to be open-minded on the topic, if everything is an insult and a sneer.

So you think Quebecers think society should be a collection of ethnic enclaves. Please educate yourself.

Sigh. I think nothing of the sort.

And I'm really not sure what you're trying to say here. It sounds vaguely threatening, as if we should realise that our language is doomed, DOOMED I say, because in North America it's a minority language and not very much used for inter-community exchanges. I just don't see the link from one to the other, sorry. Bilingualism is about ensuring that citizens can be served in a certain number (well, two in the case of bilingualism) of languages, not about imposing a particular language for international commerce.

The notion is not that French is doomed, but that policies attempting to treat the disease of "two quarreling founding peoples" by making everyone bilingual are outdated, because we live in a multipolar world.

Though I suppose that is just more insulting sneers to you. Well, I tried.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I wonder if folks could take the English/French debate elsewhere, and save this thread for the current election? Of course, discussion of language issues is welcome, as it pertains to the current election.

On topic, I note that the Liberals have started to bring "Harper fear" to the table. Do folks think this is an effective strategy, or will it backfire, as it did to Paul Martin?

What about the increased poll numbers for the NDP, particularly in Quebec? Will this translate into seats, or merely an increased popular vote count in ridings that they lose?

[RickJay]

On topic, I note that the Liberals have started to bring "Harper fear" to the table. Do folks think this is an effective strategy, or will it backfire, as it did to Paul Martin?
I'm not sure it was "Harper fear" that hurt Paul Martin so much as the specific way it was presented - in particular, the infamous Soldiers in the Streets ad, which subjected Martin's own party to parody and ridicule.

Negative advertising works if you don't go too far. If caught in a ridiculous lie, as with Soldiers In The Streets, you run the risk of accidentally inoculating your target against your criticism; the public, knowing they've been lied to, will doubt everything you say, even the things based in truth.

So I think the Liberals are wise to pull these ads out given the polling numbers. They have lost the election, obviously, barring Harper being caught with a dead hooker in his trunk, so righht now what the Liberals need to do is solidify their grip on the seats they CAN win in an effort to deny the Tories a majority. They have to win ridings like Kingston and the Islands, and if this helps, great.

What about the increased poll numbers for the NDP, particularly in Quebec? Will this translate into seats, or merely an increased popular vote count in ridings that they lose?
Angus Ried and Nanos think the NDP will win six seats. That's not bad when their previous high was one.

Today's ThreeHundredEight projections:

CPC: 149 (38.7%)
Liberal: 78 (28%)
Bloc: 47 (35.9% in Quebec)
NDP: 34 (17.6)
Green: 0 (5.8%)

Interestingly the Liberal gain in seats comes despite an effectively flat popular vote total, but it gained in the right places.

I think we could have an entire thread on why the NDP lags behind the Liberal Party in popular support. I really can't explain it except sheer inertia. I think it'd be wonderful if the NDP were to sap Liberal support, become the Official Opposition, and send the Liberals into the fourth place spot they need to get their heads back on straight, but for whatever reason millions of Canadians won't vote NDP.

Something people also never talk about is how unbelievably stacked for the Bloc Quebec's voting statistics are. With LESS popular support in Quebec than the Conservatives have nationally, they stand to win an easy majority of Quebec's seats.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Today's ThreeHundredEight projections:

CPC: 149 (38.7%)
Liberal: 78 (28%)
Bloc: 47 (35.9% in Quebec)
NDP: 34 (17.6)
Green: 0 (5.8%)



I have never looked at ThreeHundredEight's website before, but I will now. What's your take on it's accuracy and (non) partisanship?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I realize you asked that question of RickJay, but I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that I find it extremely informative, factual and impartial. A bit depressing from my standpoint, but that's my partisanship speaking...

[RickJay]

I have never looked at ThreeHundredEight's website before, but I will now. What's your take on it's accuracy and (non) partisanship?
It's a very serious site that is trying to replicate the amazing American version, fivethirtyeight. These are the best projections and the best projection analysis you'll find anywhere.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I wonder if folks could take the English/French debate elsewhere, and save this thread for the current election? Of course, discussion of language issues is welcome, as it pertains to the current election.



Yeah, but - the most interesting thing about the English/French debate is the mis-perception of each other's culture. I find it interesting every time Hypnogogic Jerk says something about the rest of Canada because I can't tell if he or she is totally out to lunch or reflecting my culture in a way I could never see.

Plus, I really don't know where the boundary is between pertaining to the current election and going over old ground in the Québec debate.

[Malthus]

It's a very serious site that is trying to replicate the amazing American version, fivethirtyeight. These are the best projections and the best projection analysis you'll find anywhere.

Wow, that does look like a great site. Thanks for bringing it up.

[Leaffan]

Think there's any bias or last-ditch attempts at vote grabbing going on here:

for the public good . ca

Broken, just because. Totally nothing to be worried about regarding work safety. Unless you're me.

ETA: Check news stories, bottom right.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Think there's any bias or last-ditch attempts at vote grabbing going on here:

for the public good . ca

Broken, just because. Totally nothing to be worried about regarding work safety. Unless you're me.

ETA: Check news stories, bottom right.

It's a website by and for Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) - scientists, researchers, engineers, auditors, health, IT and other professionals working in government departments and agencies.

This site is dedicated to profiling the work that Canada’s public service professionals do for Canadians. It will also expose the challenges and barriers they face in undertaking this work and in safeguarding the public good.

Given that the Conservative government has a pretty poor record of working with professional groups in the public service, (climate change, Chalk River, muzzling scientific comments) ...

What's the problem here? You're offended by their name? They should be more even-handed, and report good news about government policies that they disagree with? What?

I note that one of their news articles is
"Tories won’t ‘slash and burn’ public service, Baird says "

Do you have a problem with them reporting what Baird has said?

[Leaffan]

It's a website by and for Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) - scientists, researchers, engineers, auditors, health, IT and other professionals working in government departments and agencies.



Given that the Conservative government has a pretty poor record of working with professional groups in the public service, (climate change, Chalk River, muzzling scientific comments) ...

What's the problem here? You're offended by their name? They should be more even-handed, and report good news about government policies that they disagree with? What?

I note that one of their news articles is
"Tories won’t ‘slash and burn’ public service, Baird says "

Do you have a problem with them reporting what Baird has said?

Sorry. Let me be transparent here.

The linked website was sent to all of us in the public service by the union, of which I'm a member.

If you read the linked Baird article it's hardly a flattering article on Baird.

The union is using government resources to spam us and tell us who to vote for. I find that unsettling, to say the least.

[straight man]

The union is using government resources to spam us and tell us who to vote for. I find that unsettling, to say the least.
Unions... do sometimes tell people how to vote, yes? :confused:

Not sure I see the issue here.

[Leaffan]

Unions... do sometimes tell people how to vote, yes? :confused:

Not sure I see the issue here.

Never been in a union before.

First election while being in a union.

I find it to be a huge conflict of interest having my workplace union establish a web site, send me an email at my work email address that points me to said web site, and said web site is very one sided and blatantly essentially trying to tell me who to vote for.

Wow.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The union is using government resources to spam us and tell us who to vote for. I find that unsettling, to say the least.

I'm not sure how this part works. Did the union create this website using government resources? Did the union membership create the site while at work? If so, this is not a good idea, and they should be disciplined.

Or did you read the email from your union using government resources (eg. on a work computer and on work time)? If so, then you should not do this again. Try to keep union business out of your work hours. Thank you.

ETA: I agree the union should not send this to your work email.

[RickJay]

Oncidentally, the latest projections:

Tory: 147 (38.7% popular vote)
Grit: 80 (28.0%)
Bloc: 45 (35.5% in Quebec)
Dips: 35 (17.8%)
Independent: 1 (Andre Arthur, Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier)

Here in Ontario there are some incredible tight races (all estimates based on 308's methods)

Ajax-Pickering: Tories ahead by 0.4%
Brampton Springdale: Liberals ahead by 0.3%
Brampton West: Liberals ahead by 1%
Eglinton-Lawrence: Liberals ahead by 3%
Kingston & The Islands: Liberals ahead by 1.6%
Mississauga-Erindale: Tories ahead 2.4%
Sault Ste. Marie: NDP ahead by 0.1%
Sudbury: NDP ahead by 2.4%
Vaughan: Tories ahead by 1%
Welland: Tories ahead (of the NDP) by 1.6%

It's this sort of thing where voter turnout can make all the difference.

[Sam Stone]

Liberals could still govern if Harper wins minority: Ignatieff (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/19/cv-election-ignatieff-national.html?ref=rss)

[Euphonious Polemic]

Given Ignatieff's comments and the polls that suggest the Conservatives will get somewhere between 143- 147 seats (minority)...

What are people's guesses for the NEXT election date?

I'm going to say 18 months, but I'm not going to guess as to whether or not we'll have a Conservative minority or a Liberal/NDP/Bloc (non) coalition, or both.

[Cat Whisperer]

Liberals could still govern if Harper wins minority: Ignatieff (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/19/cv-election-ignatieff-national.html?ref=rss)
Well, colour me confused - how can he form the next government without a coalition? Just go to the Governor General and say, "Well, I lost the election, but I really want it, so can I please have the Prime Ministership?"

[Leaffan]

Well, colour me confused - how can he form the next government without a coalition? Just go to the Governor General and say, "Well, I lost the election, but I really want it, so can I please have the Prime Ministership?"

Harper is defeated on the Throne Speech, or the budget: quite likely. Then Ignatieff goes to the GG and says "Let me have a try. I have a budget and speech ready to go that i know will get support from the house."

And the GG lets him try.....

[Raygun99]

Well, colour me confused - how can he form the next government without a coalition?

The same way Harper has been governing without a coalition for the past five years?

[Cat Whisperer]

Harper is defeated on the Throne Speech, or the budget: quite likely. Then Ignatieff goes to the GG and says "Let me have a try. I have a budget and speech ready to go that i know will get support from the house."

And the GG lets him try.....
Ah, I see. I think I had the idea that there had to be a coalition to exceed the seats that the Conservatives had won in the election (which is how PM Harper has been governing for the last five years, as far as I know - because he won the election).

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

In purely theoretical terms, any party that gains the confidence of the house could form the government. It's easier when the governing party has more seats than all the other parties combined. It's more difficult but still practical when the governing party has more seats than any other party - then the governing party has to compromise to ensure the confidence of the house. I can't think of any precedent in the Westminster system for a second- or third-place party gaining the confidence of the house on its own to form a government. Coalitions between parties are a whole other matter, and have precedent and legitimacy. To put it bluntly, my guy said something stupid.

That being said, it's worth pointing out that if he had wanted to be the Prime Minister of a coalition government, he had the chance in 2008.

[Muffin]

Well, colour me confused - how can he form the next government without a coalition? Just go to the Governor General and say, "Well, I lost the election, but I really want it, so can I please have the Prime Ministership?"Yup.

[Sam Stone]

On the other hand, this could be him 'preparing the battlefield' for a backpedal on a coalition government. Get it out there now that he would be willing to form a government without a coalition if the GG would allow it, then after the election he can try, then come back and say, "the Governor General demands that we form a coalition if we want to take over. I didn't want to do this, but I guess I really have no choice."

Or, he could be saying this right now because the Liberals may have internal polling suggesting that one of the roadblocks against them is that no one thinks they can win, so he's trying to let everyone know that there's an 'out' for him to become Prime Minister even if the Tories win the most seats.

Personally, I WAS hoping for another Conservative minority, because it seemed like the best of all worlds - A minority government keeps their social wackiness at bay, and no one has the ability to do any kind of major activist government. And in my book, the government that governs least governs best. For the same reason, I thought having Clinton as President with Republicans controlling the House and Senate was a great result.

But I don't want to see a left-wing coalition government, and I don't want to see the Bloc with any more power over federal politics. Also, I think that if the Tories get almost 40% of the vote but the country winds up being led by the guy who only got 28% of the vote it will not make for a happy electorate. They'll be fine with it in Quebec and a few other provinces, but the western provinces will be pissed off - especially if that coalition follows through on its promises to raise taxes and spending and put all kinds of impediments on the oil sands.

So now I have to hope for a Conservative majority.

[Ibanez]

Liberals could still govern if Harper wins minority: Ignatieff (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/19/cv-election-ignatieff-national.html?ref=rss)

This is what I'm expecting to happen. Even though the possibility of a Conservative majority is still there, albeit a very slim chance. Unless Harper eats a kitten in public or something akin to that between now and May 2nd we're going to end up with a Conservative minority government.

Then it's up to the GG. If he goes for it and allows the Liberals to form a government because the Conservatives have lost a confidence vote. I give it 6 months until one of the leaders (Duceppe) turns into a honey badger and tries to tear someones balls off.

Then we're back to another election. Then all politicians would face the wraith of the Canadian electorate, which the end result would be a guaranteed Conservative majority.

Sounds loony I know, but if you haven't been following the French media the Bloc and the PQ are going into piss off Canada as much as the can mode because that's how bad they wan't independence. Federal political upheaval is good for business. After all it won't affect their paychecks one ioata.

It begs the question though, if that's the plan from the beggining why not save tax payers 300 million dollars with a useless election ? And just go to the GG straight away to take over after the Conservatives loose a confidence motion ?

No matter how you slice it. It smells like bullshit and a slap in the face to the people that votes in the governing party.

[Gorsnak]

They couldn't go to the GG and ask to form the government because Harper advised the GG to call an election. It would violate all kinds of precedent to ask Ignatieff to take a stab at gaining the confidence of the House 2 years on. That sort of thing can really only happen in the immediate aftermath of an election.

It is certainly looking like it's the plan to reject a Tory throne speech, although given the apparent lack of cooperation between the other parties (just look at them sniping at each other in ads) I'd have to think there's some options out there for Harper to try to buy off Layton or Duceppe. But I'm still going to call a Tory majority within the year if Ignatieff tries to run an ad hoc minority government, and I don't believe he'll go with a formal coalition.

[Sam Stone]

I think that if the Liberals put Canadians to the trouble of another election, only to reject the Throne speech and upset the government again, Canadians will be pretty pissed off. But memories are short - maybe he figures that even if they take a public opinion hit, if they can keep a coalition together for a couple of years they can wipe the memory of it all and regain the trust and approval of Canadians.

[Rysto]

II can't think of any precedent in the Westminster system for a second- or third-place party gaining the confidence of the house on its own to form a government.
I believe that the Ontario Liberal government from 1985 to 1987 would qualify. There was no formal coalition agreement with the NDP at that time.

Still, as I said above it would be absolutely stupid for the Liberals to try and form a government that requires the support of two different parties. This has the feel of a trial balloon on the part of Ignatieff: if it goes over ok, he tries it. If the reaction is negative he backpedals quickly. There's just one little hitch: if the voters react negatively to the idea it likely pushes the Conservatives into majority territory.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I believe that the Ontario Liberal government from 1985 to 1987 would qualify. There was no formal coalition agreement with the NDP at that time.

Still, as I said above it would be absolutely stupid for the Liberals to try and form a government that requires the support of two different parties. This has the feel of a trial balloon on the part of Ignatieff: if it goes over ok, he tries it. If the reaction is negative he backpedals quickly. There's just one little hitch: if the voters react negatively to the idea it likely pushes the Conservatives into majority territory.

Peterson was extremely careful not to call it a 'coalition' - however, there was the NDP-Liberal accord.
Rae and Peterson signed a "Liberal-NDP Accord" in which the NDP agreed to support a Liberal government in office for two years. The Liberals, in turn, agreed to implement some policies favoured by the NDP. Rae had personally supported a full coalition, but did not strongly argue this case with other members of his party. Peterson later indicated that he would not have accepted a coalition in any event.
From the Wiki article on Bob Rae.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rae)

CBC interview with Bob Rae (http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/elections/clips/5196/).

So, not a coalition, but an agreement between two parties who then vote as a majority in the house, staving off any non-confidence motions. That's still quite different from a party with 80 seats (Liberals) forming the government against another party that has 147 (Conservatives). I don't think it would be realistic to count on the support of the 45 (BQ), 35 (NDP) and 1 independent without some sort of accord, coalition, whatever you'd want to call it. And the accusation of a broken promise about not forming a coalition would weigh heavily. (Numbers taken from today's Threehundredeight.com)

As I said, I think my guy said something dumb, and I'm hoping this doesn't cost us.

[newcomer]

I think that if the Liberals put Canadians to the trouble of another election, only to reject the Throne speech and upset the government again, Canadians will be pretty pissed off. Just curious why we could not state that Harper — if he gets minority AGAIN - why would he not get it that it means Canadians want HIM to work with other parties and listen to their demands and include in the budget things that would make other parties okay with the budget?

Where is this expectation coming from where Harper with minority can act like he has majority, put together budget that does not pass a smell test with other parties and then point fingers saying "these guys are not playing ball"?

[RickJay]

I believe that the Ontario Liberal government from 1985 to 1987 would qualify. There was no formal coalition agreement with the NDP at that time.
There was a formal written agreement. I don't know if they called it a "coalition," but Bob Rae signed a contract saying he'd prop up the Liberals for a minimum of two years. That's a coalition in any sense that matters.

Personally, I WAS hoping for another Conservative minority, because it seemed like the best of all worlds - A minority government keeps their social wackiness at bay...
Mathematically and realistically it is impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority that would allow them to do anything socially wacky, like make abortion illegal or bring back the death penalty or baan gay marriage. If you examine the electoral map, a Conservative majority must logically come from gains in places like Ontario, down East, or Quebec. Even if they have 160 seats, they absolutely don't have 154 votes to ban gay marriage (even when you count the few gay-hating Liberals, and yes, there are some.)

My problem with minority governments is they spend money like it's water when they sense they're threatened. All the parties are making the wildest spending promises. We saved a lot of money under a strong Liberal majority in part because the government was in a position to simply pass a cost-cutting budget, tell the backbenchers to vote for it or enjoy running and as independent, and laugh at the opposition.

Federal expenditures have absolutely ballooned and NOBODY is talking about cutting it. Nobody. Prior to the recession the feds were up to about $237 billion a year; now it's over $280 billion. I don't see any party saying "Hey, let's pare it back to where it should be, which would be somewhere around $245 billion." I would vote for that party almost irrespective of any other issue, because Canada has some extremely serious structural spending problems in the near future. But nobody is suggesting we do anything about it. It's maddening; no party has a serious approach to the issue I think is the single most important issue we face.

So while I am very displeased about the Conservative's wild-ass spending plans in many areas, at least with a majority government (Tory or Grit, but Grit's impossible) there is a chance that government would in a couple of years do what the Chretien government did and say "Well, we're running out of money. Let's slash spending." I don't think there is any chance a minority government would do that, and a coalition would, thanks to the NDP, blow the budget through the roof.

[Cat Whisperer]

Just curious why we could not state that Harper — if he gets minority AGAIN - why would he not get it that it means Canadians want HIM to work with other parties and listen to their demands and include in the budget things that would make other parties okay with the budget?<snip>You mean like he's done for the last five years?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Mathematically and realistically it is impossible for the Conservatives to win a majority that would allow them to do anything socially wacky, like make abortion illegal or bring back the death penalty or baan gay marriage.

Interestingly, the CBC reports Conservatives are planning to de-fund Planned Parenthood (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html?sms_ss=facebook).

The decision on whether to fund the organization has not yet been announced. But Brad Trost, the incumbent candidate for Saskatoon-Humboldt, told the Saskatchewan ProLife Association's annual convention last Saturday that anti-abortion supporters who signed petitions played a big role.

In a recording of his speech, obtained by CBC News, Trost can be heard thanking those who had signed the petitions, saying his office was involved in spearheading the petition campaign along with other members of Parliament.

That socially conservative element of the party is there. Whether it is tempered by more rational people is the question.

[straight man]

They couldn't go to the GG and ask to form the government because Harper advised the GG to call an election. It would violate all kinds of precedent to ask Ignatieff to take a stab at gaining the confidence of the House 2 years on. That sort of thing can really only happen in the immediate aftermath of an election.
Well, no, not really. All the precedent in the world doesn't change the underlying premise that the Commons is supreme, not the Prime Minister —if Ignatieff demonstrably has the confidence of the House, and Harper demonstrably does not, then Ignatieff gets to be the Prime Minister. The Governor General has the duty of referee in times of crisis — s/he is not supposed to be just the mouthpiece of whoever the Prime Minister happens to be.

Of course, the ideal situation (given that the Conservatives get another minority government) would be for Harper to show restraint and not try to defund the opposition or anything stupid like that and for the opposition to show restraint and not topple his government before it gives them a good reason to do so. FWIW, I think this is a fairly likely outcome —Harper won't want to lose his job and Ignatieff won't want to look sleazy, so they'll probably just puddle along as usual.

[straight man]

There was a formal written agreement. I don't know if they called it a "coalition," but Bob Rae signed a contract saying he'd prop up the Liberals for a minimum of two years. That's a coalition in any sense that matters.
Being pedantic, one could say it is a "coalition", but not a "coalition government" — since all the members of government are from a single party. I've always assumed people mean "coalition government", since the other option involves non-governing parties giving away most of their leeway and getting almost nothing in return. YMMV.

[Spoons]

Well, no, not really. All the precedent in the world doesn't change the underlying premise that the Commons is supreme, not the Prime Minister —if Ignatieff demonstrably has the confidence of the House, and Harper demonstrably does not, then Ignatieff gets to be the Prime Minister. The Governor General has the duty of referee in times of crisis — s/he is not supposed to be just the mouthpiece of whoever the Prime Minister happens to be.I would welcome the opinion of a constitutional law scholar on this.

I was under the impression that the Queen (or, in her place, the GG) acts on the advice of her Prime Minister--which would make the GG indeed the mouthpiece of the PM. However, the Prime Ministership belongs to whoever controls the Commons. So if the Prime Minister gets a minority government, asks the GG if he can form a government, and has his request granted--and then loses the confidence of the Commons; and the leader of the Opposition (who is not Prime Minister) tries to advise the GG that he and his colleagues are the better choice, then ... aren't we in a Catch 22 of sorts? The PM has no confidence in the Commons, but the GG can only act on the advice of the PM. That is, the GG cannot act on the advice of the leader of the Opposition.

Regardless, my study of the constitution (written and unwritten) tells me that the leader of the Opposition can indeed ask to form a government if the majority party does not have the confidence of the Commons, but the GG does not have to grant that request. My question to Canadian constitutional law scholars (and I will do my own research on this as time permits): since this situation is not spelled out in the constitution, does precedent and/or tradition hold that the GG must grant the Opposition Leader's request? Or is there so little precedent that it becomes a judgment call on the part of the GG?

[kushiel]

Interestingly, the CBC reports Conservatives are planning to de-fund Planned Parenthood (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html?sms_ss=facebook).



That socially conservative element of the party is there. Whether it is tempered by more rational people is the question.

Update. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html)

I don't have any words that don't belong in the Pit. Makes me ashamed to be from Saskatchewan.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Update. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html)

I don't have any words that don't belong in the Pit. Makes me ashamed to be from Saskatchewan.

Tommy Douglas. Whenever anybody talks about Saskatchewan as being socially regressive, I have to whip out the Tommy Douglas card. Like everywhere else in Canada, there are all kinds there. Yes, the province is going through a right-wing phase at the moment - just wait...

[lexi]

Interestingly, the CBC reports Conservatives are planning to de-fund Planned Parenthood (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html?sms_ss=facebook).
That socially conservative element of the party is there. Whether it is tempered by more rational people is the question.
Harper's a member of a fundie church.
Unless you were raised around fundamentalists - it can be hard to spot them, but if you
were - you can spot them really easily, and spot them you do.
Just as the American who voted for the tea party on fiscal promises are now "shocked" regarding the tea party republicans socially conservative policies and actions, if the conservative party of Canada gets in power, the Red Tories will be "shocked" here too.
Meanwhile - us liberals who feared them will still be Cassandras.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I wonder if folks could take the English/French debate elsewhere, and save this thread for the current election?
You're correct, of course. It's just that discussing the purpose of the Bloc and how it came to exist couldn't do otherwise than to lead to Quebecers and other Canadians discussing what they each think of the other part of the country and what they think of what the other side thinks of their part of the country. And so on. I'll just give two short responses in this thread:

The notion is not that French is doomed, but that policies attempting to treat the disease of "two quarreling founding peoples" by making everyone bilingual are outdated, because we live in a multipolar world.

Though I suppose that is just more insulting sneers to you. Well, I tried.
My apologies: I thought that by "bilingualism", you referred to the policy of serving citizens in the official language of their choice, not to the idea of making everyone bilingual. That's not bilingualism to me; I don't know how I'd call it but definitely something else than "bilingualism". And because of this I thought that you were saying that since English was the dominant language of North America, we couldn't expect the federal government to still offer services in French in the long run. I just didn't see what one had to do with the other. You've explained yourself, so that's all right.

Yeah, but - the most interesting thing about the English/French debate is the mis-perception of each other's culture. I find it interesting every time Hypnogogic Jerk says something about the rest of Canada because I can't tell if he or she is totally out to lunch or reflecting my culture in a way I could never see.
I'm a he. And of course I see things about Canada that you don't see, since we just don't have the same background. In our everyday lives, in the news we hear, we don't retain the same things and we don't rate them with the same importance. I'm not inventing anything, but I'm describing things that you either haven't seen, haven't retained, or just didn't think were especially important. I have no doubts that there are cases where it's the other way around.

What about the increased poll numbers for the NDP, particularly in Quebec? Will this translate into seats, or merely an increased popular vote count in ridings that they lose?
To answer this question I will, like many others before me in this thread, recommend threehundredeight.com, which I check daily. Éric Grenier's prevision model is conservative, in the sense that he gives a weight factor to all pan-Canadian polls released in this electoral season (and even to the results of the last three elections) when computing his current forecast. So his model doesn't change especially fast as new polls are released, but this also avoids him being taken in by a rogue poll. He currently still forecasts only two NDP seats in Quebec (Outremont and Gatineau), but add a few more points of percentage to the NDP and a few more could switch. The NDP seems to be gaining votes at the expense of all other parties, but in French-speaking ridings especially from the Bloc since the Bloc was the frontrunner, and so for now the main effect seems to be that the Conservative MPs and André Arthur in the greater Quebec City region and in Eastern Quebec would be reelected. A few Bloc seats might also switch to the Liberals. So for now the NDP rise doesn't translate to many seats, but the party could be on the brink.

As for the idea of Ignatieff forming a government if the Conservatives have a plurality after this election, it won't happen with the Conservatives at 140 seats or so and the Liberals below 100. It could happen if the Conservatives lose a fair number of seats compared to the last election, while the Liberals improve. I don't see Ignatieff forming a coalition with the NDP. He believes he can run the government by himself and won't see sharing it with Layton as a possibility.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

And it's too late to alter my last message, but I just wanted to say that I have now voted in this election! I've just come back from the post office to mail my special ballot.

[Euphonious Polemic]

And it's too late to alter my last message, but I just wanted to say that I have now voted in this election! I've just come back from the post office to mail my special ballot.

So nobody from the Conservative party tried to grab it out of your hand? You must not be a student then.

;)

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

Well, I'm currently in Italy, so perhaps I'm out of their reach. On the other hand, they have Berlusconi here...

[RickJay]

Interestingly, the CBC reports Conservatives are planning to de-fund Planned Parenthood (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/20/cv-election-planned-parenthood.html?sms_ss=facebook).
Well, what the CBC is reporting is that one guy said this.

That socially conservative element of the party is there. Whether it is tempered by more rational people is the question.
Absolutely. My point is that there's not really any realistic way the Conservatives could have a majority whereby there would not be Red Tories to speak as the sane voice. You can't elect more MPs in rural Albera than there are seats. The country's most socially conservative ridings are mostly already Tory; to gain seats they must win in socially moderate and progressive ridings. To go from 143 to, say, 163, they have to pick up 20 wins primarily in places where the Tory candidate is probably not going to be Mr. Right Wing Social Issues; as it is the 143 they hold already have a lot of Red Tories. And those MPs are going to rebel if they're asked to make abortion illegal or something like that.

Taking a dramatic step like reversing the law on gay marriage is just not in the cards. Gay marriage (just to use this issue) is reality. It's the law; more than that, it's is now simply the way it's always going to be. Even the Conservatives accept that, some happily and some grudgingly; it's not mentioned in their platform because the Conservative leadership knows it's a hill they would die on.

[Cat Whisperer]

PM Harper's response to Planned Parenthood funding question. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-parenthood-042111.html) After reading the article, I'm not sure if Planned Parenthood is funded by the federal government in Canada or not. I do know that Brad Trost in no way speaks for my views on abortion and reproduction rights for women. I'm not ashamed to be from Saskatchewan; I'm a little embarrassed that HE is. :)

[Gorsnak]

PM Harper's response to Planned Parenthood funding question. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/21/cv-election-parenthood-042111.html) After reading the article, I'm not sure if Planned Parenthood is funded by the federal government in Canada or not. I do know that Brad Trost in no way speaks for my views on abortion and reproduction rights for women. I'm not ashamed to be from Saskatchewan; I'm a little embarrassed that HE is. :)

You'll be happy to know that he's being challenged from the right by "Dr." Jim Pankiw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pankiw) who's running as an independent and makes Trost look like an NDPer. I seriously doubt he'll split the right-wing vote enough for Trost to lose, though.

[Raygun99]

You'll be happy to know that he's being challenged from the right by "Dr." Jim Pankiw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Pankiw) who's running as an independent and makes Trost look like an NDPer. I seriously doubt he'll split the right-wing vote enough for Trost to lose, though.

Man, I thought he'd been laughed out of politics. I had no idea he was still around. Although thankfully I'm represented by neither now, I've had the "pleasure" of being represented in Parliament by both Pankiw and Rob Anders in the past.

[Gorsnak]

He has been, but he stubbornly keeps on running.

[Malthus]

Seems to me that the Cons are running a campaign filled with gaffes and mini-scandals, which hasn't changed their standing a bit. The Libs have not been able to capitalize on it. Oddly, the campaign that is really taking off is the NDP.

[RickJay]

Ipsos Reid has done a poll that puts the Conservatives suddenly way up at 43% (a near certain majority) and the NDP in second place, with the Liberals on the road to utter humiliation.

Don't believe it. Ipsos Reid's polls has consistently overstated Conservative support and understated Liberal support. They're an outlier. You have to look at all the polls.

[Malthus]

Ipsos Reid has done a poll that puts the Conservatives suddenly way up at 43% (a near certain majority) and the NDP in second place, with the Liberals on the road to utter humiliation.

Don't believe it. Ipsos Reid's polls has consistently overstated Conservative support and understated Liberal support. They're an outlier. You have to look at all the polls.

My point isn't that the cons are up (I think the consensus is still we are headed for a con minority), it is that they are not down - in spite of running a campaign in which every other news story is about some gaffe or scandal of theirs.

The Libs haven't picked up anything from this, seemingly.

[RickJay]

My point isn't that the cons are up (I think the consensus is still we are headed for a con minority), it is that they are not down - in spite of running a campaign in which every other news story is about some gaffe or scandal of theirs.

The Libs haven't picked up anything from this, seemingly.
Yeah, I've remarked on that too... if you had told me in March the Conservatives would commit this many gaffes and the Liberals would commit so few, I'd have thought Ignatieff would have a shot at winning.

I can't help but think, though, that the Liberals just don't have a very clear message.

The problem with attacking the governing party with all-negative advertising when you're playing in a three-or-more-party system is that while it might convince the voters not to vote for them, it doesn't necessarily convince the voter to vote for YOU. For all we know, the Liberal attack ads are convincing people to vote NDP.

The Liberal campaign has gone super negative, likely out of a sense of panic. All their ads are dark and terrifying. The Toronto Star's running daily editorials railing against Harper. By contrast, the NDP and Tory campaigns mix negative with positive; while they put up some of the mean stuff, they make more of an effort to tell you why you should vote for THEM. The Liberals were doing an okay job selling their party in the first week but when the polls didn't instantly go their way they seem to have lost their way.

[antonio107]

Ipsos Reid has done a poll that puts the Conservatives suddenly way up at 43% (a near certain majority) and the NDP in second place, with the Liberals on the road to utter humiliation.

Don't believe it. Ipsos Reid's polls has consistently overstated Conservative support and understated Liberal support. They're an outlier. You have to look at all the polls.

The poll in the Ottawa Sun read 34%, 25, 25 (and 16 for the Bloc and others, I guess?). I must say, as someone who is typically branded as a right-winger, I've been really impressed by Jack Layton personally, and on his platform. Particularly his proposal to ban cellphone carrier locks and usage based internet billing, and subsidize Broadbent--er, Broadband :)--Internet. Were my riding not a guaranteed Liberal one, I'd seriously consider voting NDP.

[RickJay]

The poll in the Ottawa Sun read 34%, 25, 25 (and 16 for the Bloc and others, I guess?). I must say, as someone who is typically branded as a right-winger, I've been really impressed by Jack Layton personally, and on his platform. Particularly his proposal to ban cellphone carrier locks and usage based internet billing, and subsidize Broadbent--er, Broadband :)--Internet. Were my riding not a guaranteed Liberal one, I'd seriously consider voting NDP.
I like Layton, but I think much of the NDP's platform is ill advised. (Limited credit card interest rates is just about the craziest idea to come down the pike in years.) The NDP platform's full of things that we can't possibly afford and with no plan for cutting spending. How on earth can we DOUBLE CPP benefits?

But he's a fundamentally good man - not perfect, and he lets whiffs of power distract him from his principles - but he's a good guy, and there's no doubt Layton's personality is driving the NDP forward. He's the leader they lacked for many years, especially in the really grim times when they seemed determined to appoint the most boring leaders to be found in the free world.

[Cat Whisperer]

Harper's a member of a fundie church.
Unless you were raised around fundamentalists - it can be hard to spot them, but if you
were - you can spot them really easily, and spot them you do.
Just as the American who voted for the tea party on fiscal promises are now "shocked" regarding the tea party republicans socially conservative policies and actions, if the conservative party of Canada gets in power, the Red Tories will be "shocked" here too.
Meanwhile - us liberals who feared them will still be Cassandras.I had to go look up PM Harper's religious affiliation, he's so in-your-face about it.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Yes, Michael Ignatieff's biggest gaffe of the campaign has been to state that his party could form the government without a coalition, even if the Conservatives have the most seats of any party in the house.


I still remain convinced that the 1997 Stephen Harper was the real one - he hasn't changed his mind on any of the socially conservative issues, he has just stopped talking about them in the hope that we'll give him a majority government.

[Muffin]

How on earth can we DOUBLE CPP benefits?That's easy -- euthanize half the retirees. Think of it as very late term abortion.

[newcomer]

Well, the talk that Jack Layton talks is silky smooth to a certain demographics in the country (I’d say in any country) which comes down to Government will take as much money is needed from those who have it to provide for those who need it - just vote for me and you’ll see. Sounds great but the money first need to be earned by those you plan to tax and that part - how to create conditions for segment of society to actually earn money - that’s where NDP ventures not. I’m personally flabbergasted that nobody is calling him on it in terms of numbers (economy, jobs, GDP projections, Government revenue projections etc.)

Harper I have to admit plays great game. His game is to accentuate (by demurring or refusing clear public stance on purely ideological issues) things that at the end of the day don't matter that much to an average voter (venerable “middle-class”) in this economy. Thus, he leaves question on economy largely ignored which - and that’s a “gamey” part - voters take as Harper has a handle on. And in the voting booth that’s what it comes down to.

Iggy, I’m sorry to say, did not create a separate stream of thinking in the campaign and there’s more than I’d like negative posturing against Harper and Conservatives. What he needs is more of actual Liberal promotion but the problem is finding the key transformational issue to rail around. Also, we need more of other prominent Liberals in the news and on the campaign trail but that then means more of Bob Rae. Can’t win like that...

[RickJay]

I still remain convinced that the 1997 Stephen Harper was the real one - he hasn't changed his mind on any of the socially conservative issues, he has just stopped talking about them in the hope that we'll give him a majority government.
I'm sure the 2004 Michael Ignatieff who called himself an American and claimed to have voted in the Presidential election was the real Michael Ignatieff, too. It's not like the current versions of the leaders are new software releases.

I have no doubt Harper belongs to a chaurch that doesn't like gay marriage and abortion. That is also true of Barack Obama, who nobody accuses of being a dangerous religious nut. It's true of most of the Prime Ministers we've had, if not all.

We aren't banning gay marraige. Abortion is not going way. Those are done deals. A Conservative majority isn't getting rid of them.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

RickJay, you sound like those folks who vote BQ saying that Québec will never separate, and the BQ can't do anything to make it separate anyway, so it's safe to vote for them. I just don't want to find out what the conservatives would do with a majority - I don't even agree with the stuff that's on the table, let alone what I suspect they've got under the table.

Is it time that we institute 'civics classes' in Canada? There is so much crap floating around right now about what is and what is not legitimate in a Westminster parliamentary system, it's driving me crazy! Maybe that's a worthwhile leaf to take from the American book.

[RickJay]

RickJay, you sound like those folks who vote BQ saying that Québec will never separate...
Well, no, I don't, because I am not using my position on the lielihood of gay marriage banning to justify a vote for the Tories (I have not, and will not, say how I'm voting, and my voting record wouldn't help you, since I've voted for all the major parties.)

I'll tell you what; if the Conservatives win a majority I'll put a thousand dollars on gay marriage being legal at the end of their mandate and a thousand dollars on abortion being legal at the end of their mandate.

I promise that when I collect my $2000 at the end of the mandate, I won't gloat.

Is it time that we institute 'civics classes' in Canada? There is so much crap floating around right now about what is and what is not legitimate in a Westminster parliamentary system, it's driving me crazy! Maybe that's a worthwhile leaf to take from the American book.
You know, I have yet to meet a single person IRL who has some huge misconception about how the system works. I can honestly say every person I know has a fundamentally correct impression of the way Parliament functions. The parties spin it in terms of what's right and proper and traditional, but I don't know anyone who has a basically incorrect impression of the concepts of confidence and such.

[antonio107]

RickJay, you sound like those folks who vote BQ saying that Québec will never separate, and the BQ can't do anything to make it separate anyway, so it's safe to vote for them. I just don't want to find out what the conservatives would do with a majority - I don't even agree with the stuff that's on the table, let alone what I suspect they've got under the table.

Is it time that we institute 'civics classes' in Canada? There is so much crap floating around right now about what is and what is not legitimate in a Westminster parliamentary system, it's driving me crazy! Maybe that's a worthwhile leaf to take from the American book.

We had civics class in grade 10. It was a half semester, split with "career studies."

[Uzi]

Well you may not think so. But ask Cat Whisperer what she thinks about official bilingualism. Or Uzi. Or Sam Stone.

It is a continual waste of money (but may be minor in the grand scheme of things admittedly). Language does not equal culture. Language equals division. I've asked before what a uni-lingual French person does in Quebec that is different than what a uni-lingual English person does outside of Quebec other than the language they speak. The differences other than language are insignificant. Speaking a different language won't change your day to day activities or your culture.
Yet, I've never said that they can't or shouldn't speak French in Quebec. That is their business. But my province (former actually. I live in Hong Kong now) shouldn't be spending money on translating documents and providing services in French when it is only the 4th most spoken language in the province. And I think that way not because I dislike French or French people, but because I think the 'Two founding nations' idea is past its due date.

Regarding this election and scandals:
So, people won't vote for the current government because of their scandals or their arrogance or whatever. I put it forward that if it was the party they are primarily for that, for most people, it wouldn't stop them from voting for them regardless of the scandals. They seem to forget the misdeeds of the past that the Liberals were famous for and will be again. What has changed with them that people think they'd be any less devious and arrogant than the current government?
When you are doing better than most countries in the world through the recession, why rock the boat? Could thing be better? Yep, usually through hard work and a long term commitment. Could things be worse? Christ yeah, and it usually takes one or two stupid mistakes to make it so and it usually happens very quickly. Anyone think that that may be the real reason people don't want a change regardless of a few minor scandals?

[Rysto]

When you are doing better than most countries in the world through the recession, why rock the boat?

This is pure scaremongering, straight out of the Conservatives' talking points. Try giving us an an actual argument. What, in your view, will the Conservatives do better than the Liberals?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Anyone think that that may be the real reason people don't want a change regardless of a few minor scandals?

There are those of us who do not think that the current crop of scandals are in any way minor. Couple that with disagreement with the Conservatives fundamental policies, and you have some very good reasons for voting for a different party.

[Ibanez]

I still remain convinced that the 1997 Stephen Harper was the real one - he hasn't changed his mind on any of the socially conservative issues, he has just stopped talking about them in the hope that we'll give him a majority government.

Not true, he was clarifying his position once again on the abortion issue yesterday.

A large portion of his support comes from social right of centre conservatives . He knows that. He's entilted to have personal opinions about abortion, gay marriage, death penalty etc. But he knows if he meddles with them he won't be in power for long. Some things you just don't touch.

[newcomer]

I'll tell you what; if the Conservatives win a majority I'll put a thousand dollars on gay marriage being legal at the end of their mandate and a thousand dollars on abortion being legal at the end of their mandate. We also have Harper's word on it but I'm afraid that's not enough. If in a minority situation he tried to bite more than Parliament would let him chew, I wonder to what extremes he will go once in a majority position. Conservatives already have trouble containing their various members of speaking what they really think (despite Harper’s penchant for media control, things leak) so I find it quite interesting that he himself has to come out and say that whatever is brewing in the Conservative caucus will not in fact translate in Parliamentary debate and overturned laws. And, apparently, his word is the guarantee.

You know, I have yet to meet a single person IRL who has some huge misconception about how the system works. I can honestly say every person I know has a fundamentally correct impression of the way Parliament functions. The parties spin it in terms of what's right and proper and traditional, but I don't know anyone who has a basically incorrect impression of the concepts of confidence and such. Here's one: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/978759--harper-questions-right-of-opposition-parties-to-form-government?bn=1

From article:

Stephen Harper is challenging a key element of Canada’s parliamentary democracy, saying the ability of the opposition parties to defeat his minority government and be asked to govern themselves is open to “debate.”

In an interview with CBC News on Thursday, Harper refused to concede that the opposition parties have the constitutional right to form government after the May 2 vote if they can win backing of most MPs in the House of Commons.

At first, he dismissed the question as a “constitutional theoretical discussion.”

But asked whether the opposition parties would have the “right” to form government, Harper said “that’s a question, a debate of constitutional law.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

RickJay, you sound like those folks who vote BQ saying that Québec will never separate, and the BQ can't do anything to make it separate anyway, so it's safe to vote for them.
Well the Bloc simply cannot do anything about Quebec independence, that much is true. And even though they may have it in their platform, as I've explained, what they're actually doing in Parliament is anything but. As for the Conservatives, they couldn't (or wouldn't) outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage even if they had a majority government, but what they can do, and even with a minority government, is to make access to abortion or contraception more difficult by reducing funding to organisms who provide such access. They can do this both in Canada and abroad; indeed it might be in third-world countries that are dependent on Canadian NGOs to provide family planning services that the effect will be most obvious.

[Spoons]

Here's one: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/978759--harper-questions-right-of-opposition-parties-to-form-government?bn=1

From article: <snip> But asked whether the opposition parties would have the “right” to form government, Harper said “that’s a question, a debate of constitutional law.[/i]This would seem to be true--that it would be a debate of constitutional law.

As I promised above, I did a little research into this, reading through Peter W. Hogg's Constitutional Law in Canada (http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Constitutional-Law-of-Canada-Peter-W-Hogg/9780779813612-item.html); and paying particular attention to the conventions and traditions surrounding the powers of the Governor-General. It seems that the closest thing we've had in our history to the question as to whether the GG can appoint the Opposition to form a government, was the King-Byng Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_Affair), of 1926; and even that's not exactly on point.

I'm unsure if Professor Franks, who was quoted in the Star article linked to above, is correct in his assertion that it is not a constitutional question. Hogg points out that while the GG is constitutionally bound to act of the advice of the PM, that didn't happen in the King-Byng Affair. King's request to dissolve the government, and Byng's response (refusing to dissolve and instead, appointing Meighen's Conservatives to the government in spite of their minority status) is still questioned and studied today by a number of prominent historians and constitutional scholars. The issue pretty much boils down to, "Were Byng's actions in ignoring the PM's advice and instead taking the initiative to appoint the Opposition to government constitutional or not?" Which is close to the question we face today, thus (Professor Franks' assertion notwithstanding) making it a constitutional question.

Hogg discusses the question in a larger context, fairly presenting both sides, but stopping short of providing a definite answer to the question. In fairness, I doubt he could conclude anything definite; there are good arguments made by both sides. At any rate, Hogg cites the historians and scholars and their relevant works, that he used in his discussion. While I don't expect the Star to include cites, I'd be interested in seeing what cites Professor Franks has, especially if they overlap with Hogg's. After reading Hogg, though, I'm left with two conclusions: (a), that this is indeed a constitutional question; and (b), that there are no clear answers. Harper is correct; there would necessarily be a constitutional debate.

[newcomer]

This would seem to be true--that it would be a debate of constitutional law. I may not have an insight into procedural part of such an action, but professor says very clearly in the article:

There’s only one requirement for being the government and that is you must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons,”

Which I understand to mean:

* Harper wins minority, puts together Government and fails on motion of confidence
* Then, Iggnatieff or Layton ask for permission to put together new Government AND passes vote of confidence

That's it.

It really does not matter how the Government is formed as long asi it passes confidence vote. No?

[Spoons]

I may not have an insight into procedural part of such an action, but professor says very clearly in the article:

There’s only one requirement for being the government and that is you must enjoy the confidence of the House of Commons,”And his cite is? He mentions precedents at home and abroad, but has provided no references to the "at home" ones; and as for the "abroad" ones, fails to mention that other countries, even ones with Westminster parliaments, have different constitutions. We cannot look to, say, Australia's constitution, as it was written specifically for Australia. Just as ours was written specifically for us.

Read our constitution sometime--you'd be surprised at what is not in it. Nowhere is mentioned a Prime Minister, elections (with the exception of the democratic rights granted through ss. 3 and 4 of the Charter), parties, majorities, and so on. How our government is formed is not mentioned at all; unlike the US constitution. The best we can do is form a government "similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom." (From the preamble to our constitution.) Which means that our constitution contains a number of unwritten conventions that are followed just as slavishly as if they were written down.

And so, we conventionally elect members to the Commons; and those members conventionally belong to parties; and, by convention, the party with the most members in the Commons can send its leader to the Queen (or GG in our case) and ask that his party be allowed to govern. It may be phrased as a request, but conventionally, it is always granted. Similarly, if the governing PM's party loses an election, or loses the confidence of the Commons, it is traditional for the PM to go to the GG and ask that the Commons be dissolved. Again, the request will be granted (but it has not always, as the King-Byng affair demonstrated, and whether Byng was correct or not is still being debated). At any rate, this is all similar to what happens in the UK Parliament. But nowhere is this written down; it is literally a "we've always done it this way" scenario; and has occurred for so long that it forms part of the constitution anyway. As a result, we don't know what, constitutionally, happens when the leader of a party that does not command that majority of seats in the Commons takes the initiative and asks that his party be allowed to form a government. There is no precedent for this in Canada, and there is nothing written down to tell us what to do.

It really does not matter how the Government is formed as long asi it passes confidence vote. No?It does. It is not as simple as you (or Professor Franks) has put it. In order for the government to be the subject of a confidence vote, it must first be the government. Per the above, constitutional convention demands that the party with the most seats in the Commons gets to make the request; and by convention, the request will be granted. So we have a government.

Now, if that government falls on a confidence vote, convention again demands that the leader of the government make another request of the GG: to dissolve the Commons. The request will be granted. Traditionally, and conventionally, we then have an election. But there is no precedent for anybody else to step up at this point and ask if they can form a government, as you understand thus:


* Harper wins minority, puts together Government and fails on motion of confidence
* Then, Iggnatieff or Layton ask for permission to put together new Government AND passes vote of confidence.Here is where the constitution fails us in all ways: written, unwritten, traditionally, conventionally, and so on. Whether Ignatieff or Layton, neither of whom led the party with the most seats (assuming that's how things turn out), can ask to form a government, or even make such a request, is unknown. Hogg's cites would indicate that some say a government can be formed in this way without an election; some say it cannot. Nobody knows for sure. In short, in order for Ignatieff or Layton to have confidence in any government they lead to be judged by the Commons, they must first be the government--and constitutionally, we don't know if they can even ask to be the government if neither gets the most seats.

[RickJay]

We also have Harper's word on it but I'm afraid that's not enough. If in a minority situation he tried to bite more than Parliament would let him chew, I wonder to what extremes he will go once in a majority position.
Are you willing to put money on it? I am.

As for the Conservatives, they couldn't (or wouldn't) outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage even if they had a majority government, but what they can do, and even with a minority government, is to make access to abortion or contraception more difficult by reducing funding to organisms who provide such access.
How could the federal government make it harder to get abortions in Canada through funding? They're at the practical mercy of the provinces in terms of how health care dollars are spent.

[Frank]

Per the above, constitutional convention demands that the party with the most seats in the Commons gets to make the request; and by convention, the request will be granted. So we have a government.

Now, if that government falls on a confidence vote, convention again demands that the leader of the government make another request of the GG: to dissolve the Commons. The request will be granted. Traditionally, and conventionally, we then have an election.
The GG is granting a request to attempt to form a government. I suspect that if a government fell on its very first vote of confidence, that the attempt has failed, and that the opposition would be provided the opportunity to form a government. Otherwise, we get the situation of having an election, Parliament sitting for one or two days, and then another election.

[Lord Feldon]

While she could have course have been planning to act in the wrong, Adrienne Clarkson has said that in 2004, she would have entertained the possibility of an alternative government if the Martin government had fallen within the first six months after the 2004 election.

[Sam Stone]

These scare tactics are just another variation on, 'Conservatives are bigots who want to oppress gays and women." It'll never stop, because creating scary monster caricatures of the right is the favorite trick in the opposition playbook.

Speaking of which - I saw an ad by the liberal party yesterday that was so over-the-top and outrageous it gave me a violently angry reaction towards them. The ad opens up with foreboding music, then shows an out-of focus picture of a scowling Harper sitting in a chair looking like a king on a throne, and the voiceover and text say, "Steven Harper is DEMANDING ABSOLUTE POWER!".

They then float a quote, supposedly by Harper, saying that it's time the Canada Health act was scrapped. And as it turns out, it's a lie. They took a quote from someone else and attributed it to Harper.

The ad then says "Last year, Harper's finance Minister recommended MASSIVE CUTS to increases in health care spending. Now Harper wants to cut 11 Billion dollars from the budget. Where would those cuts leave your family's health?"

Notice the 'massive cuts' were to requests for increases to the heatlh care budget. Nothing was cut, but the ad leaves that impression. It also leaves the impression that the feds want to cut 11 billion dollars from health care.

In fact, there is no plan to cut health care. In fact, the Conservatives plan to increase health care transfer payments to the provinces by 6%. The entire ad is dishonest from end to end. Harper is not demanding absolute power - he's responding to an election forced on him by the other side. There is no secret plan to cut health care. It's a lie from start to finish.

I predict that ads like that may excite the liberal's base (or the NDP's base...), but moderates and independents and Conservatives on the fence are going to be turned off by those kind of ads - they're very transparent. I wouldn't be surprised if ads like that are what are causing the Liberals to lose popularity.

Attack ads like this may have worked in the pre-internet era, but I think it's just too easy to find counter-information now. If you're going to attack the other side, you at least have to maintain a modicum of accuracy or you'll be called on it.

I've seen one Conservative ad, and basically all it did was accuse the Liberals of wanting to raise taxes, which is fairly standard campaign fodder. I didn't spot any obvious lies. I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives are running some pretty nasty attack ads as well, but I haven't seen them.

[Sam Stone]

This is pure scaremongering, straight out of the Conservatives' talking points. Try giving us an an actual argument. What, in your view, will the Conservatives do better than the Liberals?

- They won't try to implement cap and trade

- They won't create a new entitlement of universal day care

- They won't raise corporate taxes and destroy the first big tax advantage we've had against Americans in decades.

- They wont' screw up one of the few fiscally sound retirement systems in the G8 by increasing senior's entitlements through the guaranteed income supplement, which is already quite reasonable if you ask me.

- They won't raise 11 billion in new taxes and use it to fund 11 billion in new spending programs, many of which will be permanent entitlements impossible to cut, resulting in perpetually higher taxes and bigger government.

For example, consider universal day care. If Canada implements that, it will result in more children being raised in institutions instead of being raised at home. It will change the structure of families and result in more two-income households. Once family structures have re-arranged around free daycare, it will be nearly impossible to go back without major disruptions to the work force. It becomes an entitlement.

In the meantime, the demand for those free day cares will go up, which will result in a shortage of available teachers.

I was a director of a day care, and our city government got involved to 'improve' them. They brought in bigger subsidies, and decided to require that all workers be teachers or people almost finished a teaching degree. This resulted in the layoffs of a lot of great day care staff with years of experience , most of whom were mothers or empty-nesters looking to keep busy, who did the job because they loved little children. They were replaced by young women who didn't yet have teaching jobs and didn't particularly want to be there. Our staff turnover went through the roof.

It also drove up costs, which required even greater subsidies. Even so, we couldn't find enough staff to meet the minimum child to staff ratio, and wound up operating on waivers perpetually. The quality of child care went down substantially, and the costs went up to the point where the subsidies had to extended way up into the middle class to make it affordable.

This is the kind of meddling in child care the Liberals want to do on a national scale. It's a very bad idea.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Stephen Harper, April 9, 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFbPz6hMa1c) on same sex marriage.

Stephen Harper in 1997 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4tcwSryu7I) on two tiered health care.

I don't have to create scary monster caricatures, I just have to quote him. Or do you think I made this up?

[Spoons]

The GG is granting a request to attempt to form a government. I suspect that if a government fell on its very first vote of confidence, that the attempt has failed, and that the opposition would be provided the opportunity to form a government.That's what the question is: if the government falls, can the opposition request that it be allowed to form a government? My research indicated that nobody knows, so there would be a constitutional debate over what to do. Some (likely Harper) would argue no, and some (likely Ignatieff and Layton) would argue yes. My own guess is that the matter would be referred to the Supreme Court for an answer eventually, as it has ruled on constitutional issues in the past; and the Yes and No sides would argue it there. But I don't think that right now, anybody can say for sure what would happen.

[Lord Feldon]

My own guess is that the matter would be referred to the Supreme Court for an answer eventually, as it has ruled on constitutional issues in the past; and the Yes and No sides would argue it there. But I don't think that right now, anybody can say for sure what would happen.

If the Supreme Court gave an answer, it would not be binding. The court ruled in 1981 (the Patriation Reference) that constitutional conventions cannot be enforced by courts. While they are a part of the constitution, they aren't ultimately law.

[Uzi]

This is pure scaremongering, straight out of the Conservatives' talking points. Try giving us an an actual argument. What, in your view, will the Conservatives do better than the Liberals?

The view that we are doing better than the other countries through the recession isn't good enough for you? You'd rather be in Greece's position, which would happen if the NDP were ever in power unless you have your head up your ass to think otherwise. What ground shaking programs will the Liberals introduce that will make it any better?
And if you are accusing me of scaremongering, what do you think is happening in this thread regarding same the accusations around sex marriage and abortion? You've been told by every 'conservative' member here that it would never happen, that parliament wouldn't allow it, and yet you still have the bug up your ass over it. We do know for a fact that the Liberals implemented the NEP, so there is precedent for our beliefs.

[Muffin]

I think it would be possible for any party to become the government provided that it held the confidence of the House, regardless of how many seats it held. For example, minority governments do not hold a majority of seats. Coalition governments can exist, so I see no reason why a coalition government has to have a majority any more than a non-coalition government has to have a majority. If a party can not hold the confidence of the House, and a coalition is not formed to replace it, there is no immediate reason why a non-coalition party could not ask to be made the government, provided that it held the confidence of the House despite the other parties not being willing to go so far as to formally make a coalition.

It then becomes a matter of the GG to decide how far down the chain to go before pulling the plug and calling an election. Having the bright line test of whether or not the proposed party has the confidence of the House is, in my opinion, the test the GG should apply -- not whether there is a formal coalition or not.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Re: scaremongering. I am quoting Conservative party members, including their leader, stating their points of view on various subjects. Stephen Harper is still going on about the illegitimacy and instability of a hypothetical coalition government of 'socialists and separatists', even after one of his opponents has gone on public record as saying he will not seek a coalition if he does not win a majority of seats.

Which of these is scaremongering, in your view?

[RickJay]

I don't have to create scary monster caricatures, I just have to quote him. Or do you think I made this up?
Nobody is disagreeing with you that he said these things.

What I am pointing out is that it doesn't matter. Universal health insurance and gay marriage aren't going anywhere. Hell, Harper doesn't even suggest in your link that we get rid of universal health care; he's merely advocating that private care be allowed, something that ALL the best health care systems in the world allow. Canada is rather unique amongst rich countries in trying to ban private health care. By European standards our system is weird and inflexible. We should be trying to get better, not just stay the same. Look at France's system, widely held to be the best ever devised - they have private health care alongside a public system.

[Cat Whisperer]

Re: scaremongering. I am quoting Conservative party members, including their leader, stating their points of view on various subjects. Stephen Harper is still going on about the illegitimacy and instability of a hypothetical coalition government of 'socialists and separatists', even after one of his opponents has gone on public record as saying he will not seek a coalition if he does not win a majority of seats.<snip>
Which strikes me (and a lot of other people) as a bald-faced lie, because as we have discussed, there is no known way at this point for Ignatieff to form a government without a coalition if the Liberals win only the seats that we anticipate them winning.

I went and voted today! :)

[Baffle]

Which strikes me (and a lot of other people) as a bald-faced lie, because as we have discussed, there is no known way at this point for Ignatieff to form a government without a coalition if the Liberals win only the seats that we anticipate them winning.

I went and voted today! :)

That's only if they win the seats you anticipate.

Which isn't necessarily true.

Every election, more and more people without landlines become voters. Polls which only poll landlines will become more and more skewed, as those being polled are becoming older and older.

This election might not have many surprises where the polls are incorrect. Then again, it might.

[Spoons]

That's only if they win the seats you anticipate.

Which isn't necessarily true.

Every election, more and more people without landlines become voters. Polls which only poll landlines will become more and more skewed, as those being polled are becoming older and older.

This election might not have many surprises where the polls are incorrect. Then again, it might.I'm unsure what this has to do with Cat Whisperer's post. Where did she speak about polling; specifically, telephone polling?

While I am sure you are correct in that telephone landline polling will skew older, owing to pollsters' tendencies to call landlines, what about the fact that only 37 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 voted in 2008? (Cite (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/voting-mob-mentality-has-young-people-running-amok/article1989013/).) I think it's great that young people are organizing "vote mobs" and exercising their franchise, but I wonder--in the end, how many 18-24-year-olds will actually vote?

A journalist friend of mine admits that polls are necessarily inaccurate. It is easy to ask people whom they will vote for, and to have them answer. But all they are doing is answering the question of a pollster, perhaps at times they are not prepared to answer--the baby is in the bath, supper is on the table, the kids are in the background whining, "M-o-o-o-o-m"; but the fact remains: the polled people are not by themselves, in the voting booth, with a ballot and a pencil. As a result, he says, the only poll that counts is the one on election day; and the media only reports pre-election polls because the public demands it. There is no real way of knowing who will win until the votes are counted. I think he has a point; and so, I don't put a lot of faith in polls of any sort.

In other news, our local Conservative candidate (and this is a riding where the Conservatives could kick puppies, strangle kittens, and streak down Third Avenue, and still be elected) has decided he will not attend all-candidates forums. This has made more than a few people locally think twice about voting for him. He is new, as our old Tory MP has decided that he will not run. The fact that he is an unabashed Mormon may also have a bearing on the vote count--let's face it, religion plays a very small part in Canadian politics, but many locally are worried about what role his religion will play if he is elected. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Uzi]

Stephen Harper is still going on about the illegitimacy and instability of a hypothetical coalition government of 'socialists and separatists', even after one of his opponents has gone on public record as saying he will not seek a coalition if he does not win a majority of seats.

Which of these is scaremongering, in your view?

So, you don't believe Harper, but you are willing to believe Ignatiff. What about the Liberals gives you any reason to believe them over anyone else?

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

So, you don't believe Harper, but you are willing to believe Ignatiff. What about the Liberals gives you any reason to believe them over anyone else?

The fact that the conservatives have misled the Canadian public in the course of the last two parliaments. Bev Oda altering documents, Jason Kenney altering documents, the leaked first draft of the Auditor General's report indicating that parliament was misled over G8/G20 spending, the use of the wrong quotation (which actually concerned the liberals!) claiming the Auditor General's approval of the G8/G20 spending - the list goes on and on. Some of these have earned apologies after they have been caught out, many have not.



Bottom line - I have not been given any reason to trust the Conservative party, and I have been given plenty of reasons not to trust them. I have not been given any reason not to trust Michael Ignatieff, and I do trust him. From a standpoint of policy, I agree with much of the Liberal platform, and I don't agree with, well, any of the Conservative platform. That's the way I see it.

[RickJay]

Every election, more and more people without landlines become voters. Polls which only poll landlines will become more and more skewed, as those being polled are becoming older and older.
And yet every election the really good poll analysts are always pretty much bang on with their predictions. You don't think that the polling companies haven't accounted for this stuff?

You can't trust a single poll much, but good meta analysis is generally fairly accurate. The Conservatives are probably going to win a minority with a great many more seats than the Liberals; it's possible they will win a small majority but it's not likely. Barring some horrific revelation or catastrophe concerning the Tories in the next nine days, the Liberals are not going to win. The pollsters and analysts can't be THAT wrong.

[Polycarp]

The pollsters and analysts can't be THAT wrong.
From the south side of the border, Presidents Landon and Dewey said to tell you they agree! :D

[Euphonious Polemic]

Bottom line - I have not been given any reason to trust the Conservative party, and I have been given plenty of reasons not to trust them. I have not been given any reason not to trust Michael Ignatieff, and I do trust him. From a standpoint of policy, I agree with much of the Liberal platform, and I don't agree with, well, any of the Conservative platform. That's the way I see it.

The nail in the coffin for me in terms of the Conservatives was when they decided to prorogue (suspend) Parliament the second time, in December 2009. The first time they did it in 2008, it was supposedly because a coalition of the other parties was going to defeat them on a non-confidence vote. Conservatives painted the opposition as "un-Canadian" and possibly even traitors.

The second time, it was a transparent ploy to avoid difficult questions that had arisen about Canadian officials handing Afghan detainees over for torturing.
The question was: What role did the Conservative government play in this policy of handing prisoners over when we KNEW they would be tortured?

The scum Conservative party successfully avoided these questions by suspending the democratically elected body whose job it is to ask these difficult questions.

Disgusting.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I voted yesterday, and I was startled at the number of people at the advance poll. First time I've ever had a chance to vote on a major religious holiday. I actually went home and came back an hour later, lucked out as there were only ten people ahead of me in line. As I left, the line was back up to thirty or forty.

Regardless of the outcome, I was heartened to see so many people out at an advance poll.

[Baffle]

I'm unsure what this has to do with Cat Whisperer's post. Where did she speak about polling; specifically, telephone polling?
Her post spoke of 'anticipated' wins. How else does one form electoral expectations?


While I am sure you are correct in that telephone landline polling will skew older, owing to pollsters' tendencies to call landlines, what about the fact that only 37 per cent of Canadians between the ages of 18 and 24 voted in 2008? (Cite (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/voting-mob-mentality-has-young-people-running-amok/article1989013/).) I think it's great that young people are organizing "vote mobs" and exercising their franchise, but I wonder--in the end, how many 18-24-year-olds will actually vote?See, that's just it -- it's no longer just the 18-24 year olds who eschew landlines. Actual voters aren't getting polled now, too.

A journalist friend of mine admits that polls are necessarily inaccurate. It is easy to ask people whom they will vote for, and to have them answer. But all they are doing is answering the question of a pollster, perhaps at times they are not prepared to answer--the baby is in the bath, supper is on the table, the kids are in the background whining, "M-o-o-o-o-m"; but the fact remains: the polled people are not by themselves, in the voting booth, with a ballot and a pencil. As a result, he says, the only poll that counts is the one on election day; and the media only reports pre-election polls because the public demands it. There is no real way of knowing who will win until the votes are counted. I think he has a point; and so, I don't put a lot of faith in polls of any sort. The statistical analysis of websites like fivethirtyeight has been proven accurate more than once. But that's because their method of information gathering has been based on a fairly accurate model. I think that model's becoming less accurate as time goes by, and I haven't yet seen evidence of a change in their method.

In other news, our local Conservative candidate (and this is a riding where the Conservatives could kick puppies, strangle kittens, and streak down Third Avenue, and still be elected) has decided he will not attend all-candidates forums. This has made more than a few people locally think twice about voting for him. He is new, as our old Tory MP has decided that he will not run. The fact that he is an unabashed Mormon may also have a bearing on the vote count--let's face it, religion plays a very small part in Canadian politics, but many locally are worried about what role his religion will play if he is elected. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Out of curiosity, Spoons, in which riding do you live? I ask because I've heard the same behaviour from three local Conservative candidates -- the candidates for Guelph, Kitchener Centre, and Kitchener-Waterloo have all refused to participate in local debates or all-candidate forums. (And all three ridings are very tight races.)

[Baffle]

Out of curiosity, Spoons, in which riding do you live?

Never mind... I see you have a location tag set. Yeah, it's unlikely a Conservative would lose Lethbridge.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Never mind... I see you have a location tag set. Yeah, it's unlikely a Conservative would lose Lethbridge.

It would be nice though, if he did not deliver a big F.U. to the electorate there.

[Ibanez]

I just came back from voting, woot ! I was suprised to see the advanced polling station that busy.

[RickJay]

Having advanced polling on a holiday surely drives up the use of the service. I know a number of people who voted because, as they put it "well, we had the time."

[Dread Pirate Jimbo]

We voted yesterday also. Including us, there were a whopping four people at the voting station (the other two arrived after us). Then again, since this riding is a foregone conclusion in favour of the Conservatives, I guess there isn't much motivation for racing in to ensure your voice is heard...

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

The interesting thing is that there are at least 20 ridings where there are 5 percentage points or less between the front runner and the second place candidate. That kind of closeness makes it very difficult to predict the specific outcome.

[RickJay]

20 close ridings out of 308 isn't that much.

Making general predictions isn't THAT hard; on the extreme end, I think we all agree the Green Party is not going to win. There's a general band of likely outcomes.

Coincidentally, today threehundredeight ran "ceiling projections," e.g. the likely outcome if things go as well as they possibly can based on the very best polls each party has seen. The ceilings:

Best Conservative Outcome: CPC 170, Liberal 61, NDP 43, Bloc 33
Best Liberal Outcome: CPC 138, Liberal 91, Bloc 43, NDP 35
Best NDP Outcome: CPC 145, NDP 83, Liberal 50, Bloc 30

The Liberals, barring a truly amazing news event or three, aren't going to win. This "they don't poll cell phones" stuff I've been hearing for ten years and it's never turned up an amazing result before and nobody's provided a very good reason why it would.

If the polls are going to move in any direction from now on in I'm betting it will be to the further advantage of the NDP, with some advantage to the Tories, and the Liberals bottoming out (which for them would be 20-22 percent.)

[Uzi]

Bottom line - I have not been given any reason to trust the Conservative party, and I have been given plenty of reasons not to trust them. I have not been given any reason not to trust Michael Ignatieff, and I do trust him.

Well, other than he didn't seem to like Canada enough to live here for a quarter century. Now he wants to come here and and experiment on us.
You know the history of the Liberal party and they aren't anymore trustworthy than any other party. Once in power long enough, they all become corrupt. What matters is in spite of this, who will run the country better long term. It is unlikely that the matters you hear about in the news are not the first or the only matter that would get you shorts in a knot. It is like the thief saying to the judge, "This is the first time I've ever stolen anything, your Honor". Ingatiff and a Liberal government won't be any different in this regard.

[/QUOTE]From a standpoint of policy, I agree with much of the Liberal platform, and I don't agree with, well, any of the Conservative platform. That's the way I see it.[/QUOTE]

So, can we agree then that 'trust' isn't really an issue with you as you'd vote for the Liberals regardless even if they were the current ones with egg on their faces?
And when the rubber meets the road, the way any government runs the country is pretty close to the way any of them do regardless of their platform. Or, when you say platform, do your really mean wildass speculations based upon your perceived attitude towards anyone of a 'conservative' nature?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Best NDP Outcome: CPC 145, NDP 83, Liberal 50, Bloc 30.....

If the polls are going to move in any direction from now on in I'm betting it will be to the further advantage of the NDP, with some advantage to the Tories, and the Liberals bottoming out (which for them would be 20-22 percent.)

I've never voted NDP in my life but now I'm getting all excited about Jack Layton It also helps that I'm now drawing Canada Pension.

Never thought I'd see the day that I would vote NDP. Trudeau turned me into a Liberal and now Layton has turned me into a socialist !

The times they are a changing.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Well, other than he didn't seem to like Canada enough to live here for a quarter century. Now he wants to come here and and experiment on us.

I take it you would turn down a teaching post at Harvard, and that you think it isn't much of an accomplishment.


You know the history of the Liberal party and they aren't anymore trustworthy than any other party. Once in power long enough, they all become corrupt. What matters is in spite of this, who will run the country better long term. It is unlikely that the matters you hear about in the news are not the first or the only matter that would get you shorts in a knot. It is like the thief saying to the judge, "This is the first time I've ever stolen anything, your Honor". Ingatiff and a Liberal government won't be any different in this regard.

The Liberals have had one major scandal - the Sponsorship scandal. How many Conservative party scandals do we know about, and how many will it take for you not to trust them? More importantly, why do you feel the need to 'punish' the Liberals further and not feel the need to 'punish' the Conservatives?

[/ QUOTE ]From a standpoint of policy, I agree with much of the Liberal platform, and I don't agree with, well, any of the Conservative platform. That's the way I see it.[/ QUOTE ]

So, can we agree then that 'trust' isn't really an issue with you as you'd vote for the Liberals regardless even if they were the current ones with egg on their faces?

No, I do not agree that 'trust' isn't really an issue with me. Trust is a huge issue with me, and it is a large factor in my not voting for the Conservatives, and my not wanting anyone else to vote for them, either.

Then, on top of that, I do not agree with the idea that we need to spend billions of dollars on prisons, nor corporate tax cuts. We need to replace our fighter jets, but I don't have enough information on the jets the Conservatives want to purchase. More importantly, neither does my MP! I don't agree with canceling the compulsory long form census, I don't agree with scrapping the gun registry, I don't even agree with the child tax credits for enrolling children in sports and arts - if it's that important (and I think it is!), give the money for school programs so that every kid can benefit instead of just the kids whose parents are rich enough to pay. And the amount of money is ridiculously small in comparison to the expense.


And when the rubber meets the road, the way any government runs the country is pretty close to the way any of them do regardless of their platform. Or, when you say platform, do your really mean wildass speculations based upon your perceived attitude towards anyone of a 'conservative' nature?

I really don't know what you mean. Is this a reference to my distrust of Conservative candidates who are on record as being opposed to abortion, gay marriage or in favour of two-tiered medicare? In which case, I don't think it's wild assed speculation to quote their own words against them.

At any rate, no, I know enough of the Conservative platform as they themselves have presented it to know I do not agree with it. And I know enough of the Liberal platform to know that they are speaking about values that I hold dear - universal day care, the passport to learning, support for the arts, support for home care, corporations paying their fair share. Invest in society and business will benefit. Cutting social programs to give tax breaks to corporations, however, does not benefit society.

You, of course, are free to disagree with any of this and to argue against it - that's why we have a plurality of viewpoints, and why we have this thread.

[antonio107]

I've never voted NDP in my life but now I'm getting all excited about Jack Layton It also helps that I'm now drawing Canada Pension.

Never thought I'd see the day that I would vote NDP. Trudeau turned me into a Liberal and now Layton has turned me into a socialist !

The times they are a changing.

Ditto! I've resigned myself to the fact that the CPC will never touch the social issues which interest me out of fear of a populist revolt, so I may as well vote for the NDP, whose economic platform is really intriguing and exciting,

[Uzi]

More importantly, why do you feel the need to 'punish' the Liberals further and not feel the need to 'punish' the Conservatives?

What punishment? It is usually the back benchers who end up getting the boot.

Then, on top of that, I do not agree with the idea that we need to spend billions of dollars on prisons, nor corporate tax cuts.

We don't need prisons? But I agree. We have lots of unpopulated islands up north. A few penal colonies would cut the prison budget immensely.

We need to replace our fighter jets, but I don't have enough information on the jets the Conservatives want to purchase.

Jets aren't TV's. There are only a few companies who make them. Pick up a Jane's manual and you'll know all you need to know about them.

I don't agree with canceling the compulsory long form census,

Sure, make it illegal for someone to not give information to the government (that is readily available from other sources) if I don't want to.

I don't agree with scrapping the gun registry,

Obviously, you know nothing about it, or could care less that money is wasted unnecessarily for no other reason than to placate a bunch of fearful city folk.

I don't even agree with the child tax credits for enrolling children in sports and arts - if it's that important (and I think it is!), give the money for school programs so that every kid can benefit instead of just the kids whose parents are rich enough to pay.

I agree. If you want to send your kids to sports and arts then pay for it yourself. Why should I pay tax money to get YOUR kids off the couch. Have them deliver flyers. Good exercise and it teaches the the value of a dollar. We'd probably end up with less people voting NDP.

At any rate, no, I know enough of the Conservative platform as they themselves have presented it to know I do not agree with it. And I know enough of the Liberal platform to know that they are speaking about values that I hold dear - universal day care, the passport to learning, support for the arts, support for home care, corporations paying their fair share. Invest in society and business will benefit. Cutting social programs to give tax breaks to corporations, however, does not benefit society.

Sounds great. Who will pay for it? Taxing corporations to pay for social programs doesn't benefit anyone as they will move elsewhere and there will just be unemployed people wanting more welfare. I guess you could give them jobs in the government, but you'd end up like Greece.

[RickJay]

Cutting social programs to give tax breaks to corporations, however, does not benefit society.
Leaving aside the fact that

1. This is obviously a false dilemma, and
2. A lot of progressive economists think we should be eliminating corporate taxes entirely and completely rethink how we raise tax money,

What social programs have the Conservatives cut?

Program spending under the Conservatives absolutely has not gone down. It has gone up. There have been no substantive cuts to program spending at the federal level in quite a long time.

The only government on my lifetime that has cut social programs, IIRC, was the Liberal government of Jean Chretien.

Now, raising another point,

3. We have to cut something.

None of the major parties have addressed the serious spending problem we have; the federal government is absolutely bleeding money and you can't just jack up corporate tax rates and expect the money to pour in, because taxation just doesn't work that way and never has. Federal spending has ballooned during the recession for the sake of stimulus and not one federal party has a plan for cutting back to pre-recession levels. The Conservatives have not committed to any spending cuts of any social program of any significance; I challenge you to name one. They're committed to the health transfer escalator, which is the single biggest social program the feds have. They have no plans to cut OAS, they're raising the GIS, and have no plan to reduce CPP benefits.

But the fact is we need to find some money. Health care spending is going to bankrupt the country; it's already killing the provinces and any serious projection says it's a catastrophic problem waiting to happen.

I agree the prison plan is... well, it's puzzling. You could argue that F-35 should be replaced by a cheaper alternative, though I don't trust the Liberals to do that - I fully expect them to fuck it up the way the did the EH-101 project - and the NDP refuses to promise to cancel F-35, which means we'll end up with them.

But even if you stopped the stupid prison plan and scrapped F-35 entirely, you wouldn't even be CLOSE to solving our health care cost problem. You're not even in the ballpark. The entire F-35 project would not pay the health care costs just for the province of Ontario for half a year... and that cost is expected to double in 15 years.

What's the plan for paying for this? How're we going to slash spending now to make room for it? I'll tell you one thing; I don't see it in any of the parties' platforms. Unless you want to end up like the USA, which now has a structural back-breaking deficit with no solution, this is the ONLY question you should be asking the candidates.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Le Ministre de l'au-delà I don't agree with scrapping the gun registry,

Uzi Obviously, you know nothing about it, or could care less that money is wasted unnecessarily for no other reason than to placate a bunch of fearful city folk.

On August 31, 2010 the RCMP released its evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program. The report is dated February 2010 and confirms what registry supporters have been advocating; the vast majority of firearm related deaths in Canada are the result of rifles and shotguns. The report clarifies that the registry is effective, efficient, cost-efficient and most importantly, it saves lives. To read the full report, follow this PDF link. (http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/fire-feu-eval/eval-eng.pdf)

In fact, the Coalition for Gun Control (http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/C391/C391.htm) has a handy list of resources, featuring links to statements and presentations supporting the continuation of the gun registry. These include police associations, public health experts and women's safety experts. One of my personal favourites is Sheila Fraser, in her capacity as Auditor General of Canada. She is, you will recall, the person who criticized the cost overruns of the gun registry in 1996 and 2002. If I may quote from her statement (http://www.guncontrol.ca/English/Home/C391/AGFraserSECU.pdf) (PDF link) regarding her last audit of the gun registry in 2006 -
We found that the government had made satisfactory progress in recording and reporting the full costs of the program. At that time, we noted that the annual expenditures for the centre had decreased from $117.3 million in the 2002-2003 fiscal year to $71 million in 2004-2005.

In other words, the cost overruns are a thing of the past. According to the YWCA (http://www.ywcaregina.com/election2011.htm), Across the country, our shelters tell us the long gun registry is useful and needed. Our rural shelters tell us police consult the long gun registry every time they go to a domestic violence incident.

If it is scrapped and the information destroyed, that would, indeed make it a total waste of our time and money. It would render women less safe from domestic violence, and it would leave police officers less safe. Remember Mayerthorpe, Alberta?

So in response to your off the cuff remark, whether it is obvious to you or not, I do know quite a bit about it, and I do care that opponents mistakenly parrot the erroneous viewpoint that it is money is wasted unnecessarily for no other reason than to placate a bunch of fearful city folk.

I haven't time this evening to go into any of your other interesting points, though I do thank you for engaging with me on these issues. I would just like to quickly comment that it is strange that you hold to the out of date idea that the gun registry is a waste of money when it is supported by so many members of the police forces in Canada, while you don't seem to feel that new prisons for the perpetrators of unreported crimes is a waste of money, even though the crime statistics are down...

[Uzi]

Remember Mayerthorpe, Alberta?

Yeah, a guy who was prohibited from owning firearms killed 4 police officers. Yay, gun registry!

[RickJay]

On August 31, 2010 the RCMP released its evaluation of the Canadian Firearms Program. The report is dated February 2010 and confirms what registry supporters have been advocating; the vast majority of firearm related deaths in Canada are the result of rifles and shotguns
I don't know how closely you read that report, but the vast majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides. You aren't going to stop suicides with a long gun registry.

In fact, most HOMICIDES are committed with weapons that had already been restricted - handguns and restricted types of long guns. You will note the statistics on page 21.

I'm not necessarily saying the LGR should be scrapped but let's ensure we have the facts straight.

[RickJay]

Whoa.

WKOS today released a poll in which they claim the NDP is going to win FIFTY-THREE seats in Quebec, and 100 across the country.

Going riding by riding it is nearly impossible to figure out how the NDP could win that many seats in Quebec, and EKOS's trend lines look like their latest data is probably really skewed, but there is no doubt the NDP is now in position to replace the Liberals as the Official Opposition.

A lot of pundits are wondering if the NDP can keep it up over the last week. I think it's more a matter of whether or not the Liberals can shake off the stench of death. I think not.

[Malthus]

Yeah, I've remarked on that too... if you had told me in March the Conservatives would commit this many gaffes and the Liberals would commit so few, I'd have thought Ignatieff would have a shot at winning.

I can't help but think, though, that the Liberals just don't have a very clear message.

The problem with attacking the governing party with all-negative advertising when you're playing in a three-or-more-party system is that while it might convince the voters not to vote for them, it doesn't necessarily convince the voter to vote for YOU. For all we know, the Liberal attack ads are convincing people to vote NDP.

The Liberal campaign has gone super negative, likely out of a sense of panic. All their ads are dark and terrifying. The Toronto Star's running daily editorials railing against Harper. By contrast, the NDP and Tory campaigns mix negative with positive; while they put up some of the mean stuff, they make more of an effort to tell you why you should vote for THEM. The Liberals were doing an okay job selling their party in the first week but when the polls didn't instantly go their way they seem to have lost their way.


Getting back to this, a few days later ... seems to be true in spades. I'd never have dreamed that the result of this campaign would be a Liberal implosion. Never.

I still do not rightly understand it. While Iggy is an uncharismatic leader, the Lib campaign was, I thought, at least reasonably gaffe-free. Turns out that isn't enough.

The NDP becomming the official opposition (which still seems to be unlikely, if less so every day) - that will change the political map, allright. If, as seems likely, there is a Con minority ... what would the Libs have to gain from a coallition gov't led by the NDP?

[RickJay]

Getting back to this, a few days later ... seems to be true in spades. I'd never have dreamed that the result of this campaign would be a Liberal implosion. Never.

I still do not rightly understand it. While Iggy is an uncharismatic leader, the Lib campaign was, I thought, at least reasonably gaffe-free. Turns out that isn't enough.

The NDP becomming the official opposition (which still seems to be unlikely, if less so every day) - that will change the political map, allright. If, as seems likely, there is a Con minority ... what would the Libs have to gain from a coallition gov't led by the NDP?
That's an interesting question. EKOS's wild 100-seat projection included the theorizing that such a result would almost necessitate an NDP-Liberal coalition, since they'd hold more than half the seats and the Conservatives would have done much worse than anticipated.

Leaving aside my absolute terror at the idea of Prime Minister Layton, since he'd spend us into bankruptcy and abslutely murder business... such a coalition strikes me as being potentially devastating to the Liberals.

As it is Michael Ignatieff and his team have driven the Liberal bus right into a wall. As bad as it is, as least they haven't driven it off a cliff. The never-ending calls for the Liberals and NDP to combine their forces ignore the fact that they're different parties for a reason. If the NDP had wanted to be Liberals, they never would have formed the NDP, they'd have joined the Liberals.

In a scenario where the NDP commands the confidence of Parliament with 100 seats and Liberal support, the Liberal party's purpose for existence, at a federal level, becomes even more questionable. Their relevance is put to the test; what's the point of having them if Parliament is, in effect, a bipolar battle between the Tories and the Dips?

Of course, there's this "de-cleft the left" sentiment that the only reasonthe Tories are winning is that they "united the right." But that just doesn't square with the facts. For one thing the Tories, prior to 1993, always were united, and they usually didn't win. If uniting the right means doom for the Liberals, then why were Liberals winning elections? How did Pierre Trudeau keep winning?

The creation of the new CPC is just a reset of what had existed prior to 1993 - indeed, I could argue it's still less than it used to be because many Mulroney Tories are still with the traitor party.

More frighteningly for the Liberals, let's be honest; the "union" that created the Conservative Party was nothing of the sort. It was the complete and total surrender of the Progressive Conservative party to the Alliance or the Reform Party or whatever the hell they were called at that point. The federal PC Party was a dead man walking and agreed to be absorbed by the Alliance so they could be part of a party that had a shot at winning again. And in their first shot... THEY LOST. They went out there in 2004 and lost, taking fewer than a third of Canada's seats.

It's simply not a guaranteed thing that a united right can always win elections in an electoral landscape that includes the Liberals and NDP, as evidenced by the fact that they have, in fact, lost many such elections.

The Liberals can win elections. They don't need to let a resurgent NDP devour them. But they need to look in a mirror and have an honest talk about the shitty job they've done selling themselves to the Canadian people. In the last four elections they haven't had any platform beyond "Vote for us because you owe us, you dumb assholes," except for Stephane Dion's Green Shift, which they dumped as fast as they could. (Like it or hate it, at least it was a platform.) The Liberals aren't losing because the political dynamics have changed in some irreparable way; they're losing because they deserve to lose, and they need to fix themselves. I hope they do, 'cause I'd like to vote for them again.

[Raygun99]

I think some of these more outlandish projections are a bit of wishful thinking on the part of the media - not out of any partisan bent, but out of a desire for something interesting to happen. I don't want the NDP in a position of actual power either, but in a pure horse race sense, the surge of the NDP is an interesting development (cutting the Bloc in half isn't a terrible thing either, even if it is the NDP that does it).

I'm reminded a bit of the last UK election when some polls had the LibDems in the lead near the end, only to have them actually lose seats from the last election. I don't think that'll happen here, as some of the gains appear to be real, but it's not going to be as much as some are projecting.

Then again, a big part of the battle is getting people to think their votes will count, and that they're supporting a viable candidate. In the recent Calgary mayoral election, Naheed Nenshi was a fringe candidate until a poll came out that had him in striking distance of the two front runners. Suddenly people realized that their vote might count and bothered to vote. Perception becomes reality.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Leaving aside my absolute terror at the idea of Prime Minister Layton, since he'd spend us into bankruptcy and abslutely murder business...

Do you have any factual basis for this, or is it just generalized fear based on a "sense" of what the NDP is all about?

Which of the following NDP Platform planks do think would contribute to "murdering business"? Do you think the bolded one below is particularly left-leaning and scary?

Reducing the Small Business Tax Rate
Establishing a Job Creation Tax Credit
Extending Tax Credits for Job-Supporting Investment
Ensuring Foreign Investment Delivers Quality Canadian Jobs
Setting the Corporate Tax Rate at Below the USA’s
Investing in Critical Infrastructure

[RickJay]

Do you have any factual basis for this, or is it just generalized fear based on a "sense" of what the NDP is all about?
Well, you can cherry pick your platform items. The NDP platform proposes to raise spending to some $30 billion more than its recession stimulus level. So either they're gonna have to jack taxes through the roof, or some future government will have to. Even the NDP is admitting they can't find it; they're already backing off the idea of a cap-and-trade system raising billions.

It's partially that and partially a general sense, though. To use an example, their idea around capping credit card interest rates is so remarkably stupid, so unbelievably imbecilic, that I don't know whether to be repelled by their stupidity or their dishonesty, because it's hard fr me to believe that sane and educated adults could make such a ridiculous promise and mean for it to be taken seriously.


Setting the Corporate Tax Rate at Below the USA’s
This is a meaningless promise; the USA has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world, and "Corporate tax rate" is such a general term that if put in charge of tax law I could quite easily take actions that would both lower the corporate tax rate and raise it at the same time. The NDP could in fact jack the rates up and still keep this promise, since the bar they're setting can be argued to be way, way higher than where our corporate tax rates are now.

National housing strategy? It'll be a disaster, as in fact "housing strategies" almost always are.

More interference in foreign investment? Why, that's worked so well in the past. And by "so well" I mean "not so well."

Guaranteeing a DOUBLING of health transfers in 12 years? Well, in fairness, the Liberals promised that too. But while cutting off private options? Come on, it's a free country.

I'm not even halfway through here. And yeah, I remember the NDP's run at power in Ontario. Hoo, boy.




Investing in Critical Infrastructure[/QUOTE]

[Euphonious Polemic]

To use an example, their idea around capping credit card interest rates is so remarkably stupid, so unbelievably imbecilic, that I don't know whether to be repelled by their stupidity or their dishonesty, because it's hard fr me to believe that sane and educated adults could make such a ridiculous promise and mean for it to be taken seriously.



I know there are a lot of headlines and blogs all about the NDP's plan to "cap credit card rates", but it would be a good idea to look at what THE NDP ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than rely on secondhand (wrong) information.

* We will ensure Canadians have access to credit cards with interest rates no higher than 5 per cent above prime;
* We will give federal financial regulators new powers to identify and ban excessive interest rates on credit cards, payday loans, store cards and other forms of consumer credit;
* We will oblige lenders to provide clearer, easy-to-understand disclosure of the real costs of credit cards, store cards and payday loans;
* We will end unfair bank and credit card transaction charges for both consumers and small businesses.


I guess you can twist this wording into a "cap on interest rates" if you like. I really don't mind if financial regulators are given powers to identify and ban excessive rates, and I don't really worry that banks and credit card companies will suffer too much. Maybe you think rates of almost 60% per year (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/59.9-percent.html) are justifiable, but others would disagree.


National housing strategy? It'll be a disaster, as in fact "housing strategies" almost always are.

Well, I guess since you know that this is always the case, we can just trust that you can tell the future too.


More interference in foreign investment? Why, that's worked so well in the past. And by "so well" I mean "not so well."

Yes, Canada almost ceased to exist after Harper halted BHP Billiton’s takeover of Potash Corp. Oh wait, that was the Conservatives doing that, so it must have been OK



Guaranteeing a DOUBLING of health transfers in 12 years? Well, in fairness, the Liberals promised that too. But while cutting off private options? Come on, it's a free country.

It's a free country? What does that even mean? Um, ya, I'm in the majority in this country that would not like to see the Canada Health act gutted, and I"m not ready to "enjoy" the private medical system that is working so efficiently (not) in the US.


I'm not even halfway through here. And yeah, I remember the NDP's run at power in Ontario. Hoo, boy..


I remember that the federal and Ontario NDP parties are not the same, identical thing.

I think your ideology and past biases are taking precedence over your ability to dispassionately look at the platforms as they are written.

[Sam Stone]

I know there are a lot of headlines and blogs all about the NDP's plan to "cap credit card rates", but it would be a good idea to look at what THE NDP ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than rely on secondhand (wrong) information.

I guess you can twist this wording into a "cap on interest rates" if you like. I really don't mind if financial regulators are given powers to identify and ban excessive rates, and I don't really worry that banks and credit card companies will suffer too much. Maybe you think rates of almost 60% per year (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rep2/59.9-percent.html) are justifiable, but others would disagree.


So, you said that the statement that the NDP was going to cap credit card rates was wrong, then to prove it you quote the NDP platform - where it says that they will ensure that credit card interest rates are no more than 5% above prime. How is that not a cap?

Do you know WHY credit card rates are so high? They're so high because default rates on credit cards are very high, as are disputes, charge-backs, and other time-and-money consuming activities.

If you cap credit card rates the way the NDP wants to, I guarantee you one of three things will happen:

1. People with poor credit will not be able to get credit cards at all
2. Credit card companies will compensate by jacking up annual fees and transaction fees to cover their risks, or
3. There will be some creative means to achieve the same thing they used to have through the invention of some new form of credit (rent to own is a current example of that - at even higher credit cost than credit cards).

As for whether 60% per year is 'acceptable' - I would say that's something to be decided between the credit card company and its potential customers. If you don't want to pay usurious rates, don't get into debt with such companies.

Well, I guess since you know that this is always the case, we can just trust that you can tell the future too.

The NDP in Ontario tried to muck about in the housing market, and made a hell of a mess. The U.S. has been engaging in social policy through manipulation of the housing market, and look how well that worked out for them. Have a look at the projects in the inner cities to see what's happened to public housing there.

Perhaps you can point to a success the NDP has had with housing market manipulation? They've had lots of opportunities to try it in the various provinces in which they've held power.

Yes, Canada almost ceased to exist after Harper halted BHP Billiton’s takeover of Potash Corp. Oh wait, that was the Conservatives doing that, so it must have been OK

Just because a single sale has been stopped by another government doesn't mean large-scale government intrusion in foreign investment is a good thing

It's a free country? What does that even mean? Um, ya, I'm in the majority in this country that would not like to see the Canada Health act gutted, and I"m not ready to "enjoy" the private medical system that is working so efficiently (not) in the US.

Right, it's always about us vs the U.S., isn't it? Canada is actually one of the few countries that completely disallow certain private medical treatments. France, Singapore, Sweden, and other countries with good health care systems allow a private system to coexist with the public system. Canada has been moving in that direction for a long time, because a completely public system tends to suck.

I think your ideology and past biases are taking precedence over your ability to dispassionately look at the platforms as they are written.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that RickJay is well educated on what the NDP wants to do. You just don't like his opinion, so it's easier to just call him an ideologue than to actually answer specific challenges.

Let me bring up another form of craziness the NDP wants to engage in: They want to DOUBLE the size of Canadian's pensions. Do you have any idea how much that would cost? And why should pensions be doubled? If you're a low-income senior, you're eligible today for $934 in CPP, plus if you retire after age 65 you can get up to $526 in Old Age Security, and if you're poor you can receive up to 665.00 per month as a Guaranteed Income Supplement. That's $2125 per month for an individual. For a married couple, it totals slightly under $4,000 per month.

In what universe is this not an adequate pension? Consider that retired people in Canada have free health care, many services are free or at reduced costs, there are rent supplements and food supplements available, you have no work related costs any more, AND you had an entire lifetime to save some money for retirement.

Frankly, I think Canada Pension and all the supplements are TOO generous, and probably one of the reasons why Canadians aren't saving their own money for retirement very much. I can't imagine anyone thinking that it would be a good idea to give retired people $4,000 per month from the government. Or that it would be remotely affordable without cranking up the CPP and employer contribution to at least double (more than double, unless you're going to wait until people have contributed at the new rate for their entire lives before doubling their payout).

The NDP also wants to provide universal day care and early childhood education - another extremely expensive program with marginal to no benefit which would saddle us with more taxes and ensure more kids get raised in institutions instead of the home.

The NDP wants to reinstate the 360 hour qualification for unemployment insurance, regardless of region. So all those seasonal workers can get back on the pogey in the off-season instead of building a diversified economy. This is a terrible idea.

The NDP wants to mandate that employers give any employee six months off to help look after family members near the end of their life, and the government will pay unemployment insurance benefits to those people. That sounds all compassionate, but it will be a significant burden on employers and will be quite expensive. And of course, it's kind of hard to tell where the last six months of a person's life starts. You don't know that until they're dead. My father was supposed to be dead in two weeks at one point, and lived another five years. It's an unworkable program.

I could go on. They offer all kinds of tax breaks for the poor, for families, all kinds of new tax credits for small business, a home energy tax credit for heating oil (which is bizarre, since I thought they wanted to increase energy taxes), double Canada Pension payments, institute universal day care, double health care transfer payments, and on and on. These are huge, expensive programs. We're already running a deficit. Where is the money coming from?

Their 'green' plan is laughably naive. They want not just a cap-and-trade system, but they want to put hard limits on emissions for specified industries, with a goal of reducing our CO2 emissions by 80%! That's an insane number we have no hope of reaching, and they'd bankrupt us if they try.

They want to pay for all this by raising the federal corporate tax rate to 19.5% - A hike of nearly 50%. They also think they can get a large amount from a 'tax haven crackdown', which seems unlikely, but if true would amount to the equivalent of another 20% tax hike on corporations. They also claim to be able to save $2 billion a year by eliminating 'fossil fuel subsidies'. I'm not sure where that comes from - Is this a euphemism for raising fuel taxes? Or is there really 2 billion per year being handed out as subsidies to energy providers?

As for the corporate rate remaining below America's - there's a big different between the literal rate number and the effective rate paid by corporations. Canada's listed rate of corporate tax is significantly below the U.S's, but in terms of effective tax rates we're nearly on par. The NDP would make Canada a much more expensive place to do business, at a time when we're about to reap a harvest of having a smaller, more responsible government than the U.S. Let's not screw that up.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip> They also claim to be able to save $2 billion a year by eliminating 'fossil fuel subsidies'. I'm not sure where that comes from - Is this a euphemism for raising fuel taxes? Or is there really 2 billion per year being handed out as subsidies to energy providers? <snip>I think this means that they intend to stop all subsidies to the oil sands.

[Uzi]

I think this means that they intend to stop all subsidies to the oil sands.

Kind of like not wanting to feed the golden goose.

[RickJay]

I know there are a lot of headlines and blogs all about the NDP's plan to "cap credit card rates", but it would be a good idea to look at what THE NDP ACTUALLY SAYS, rather than rely on secondhand (wrong) information.
Although you're very convincing in your use of capital letters, I've read the platform, from the first word to the last, and was referring to it when writing my post.

"Make sure Canadians have access to credit cards" no higher than 5% above prime either means caps or that the government's getting into the credit card business. You tell me what else it could mean. I could explain WHY credit card rates are high, but gosh, surely anyone can figure that out?

Incidentally, 60% is pretty high for interest on a credit card. Do you have any links to such an instrument existing in Canada? I don't care if one exists in another country. Don't we already have laws limiting what the Money Marts can do?

We absolutely do not need the government jamming its snout into what Visa is charging.

Yes, Canada almost ceased to exist after Harper halted BHP Billiton’s takeover of Potash Corp. Oh wait, that was the Conservatives doing that, so it must have been OK
No, it wasn't okay.

It's a free country? What does that even mean? Um, ya, I'm in the majority in this country that would not like to see the Canada Health act gutted, and I"m not ready to "enjoy" the private medical system that is working so efficiently (not) in the US.
Ah, yes, the tired old false dilemma; "if we don't ban private care it'll be just like the USA." It's the one logical fallacy that has become like gospel to so many Canadians.

I must point this out again; almost every country in the industrialized world allows private health care while maintaining a public single payer system. The USA is an outlier, but so are we. Amazingly, these mixed systems in Europe and such WORK, and by many measures some of them work a hell of a lot better. The consensus best system in the world is France's, which has private care. France is no richer a country than us, they have an aging population like us, and they have a better system that allows private care and private insurance while maintaining an effective basic care system paid for by the government. Can we not examine that?

It's time Canadians put aside this ignorant attitude that Canada and the USA are the only health care systems that exist anywhere in the world or that can exist, and that any attempt to improve our system means we're going to be like the USA. It's simply not the case that allowing patients and doctors to freely engage in health care services means we scrap universal health coverage, as proven in more countries than you can shake a stick at, and this "Booga booga booga you want the American system ooooh!" nonsense is scaremongering and ignorant.

Gosh, people are accusing the Conservatives, and now the Liberals, of scaremongering, but there is NO more ignorant and irritating scaremongering than the silly defense of our weird ban on private health care. We've had situations where after 5 PM you could get an MRI for your fucking dog by paying a few hundred bucks, but you couldn't get one for your sick child and might have to wait months, while Fido got care right away. It's just stupid. There is no reason we can't have a mixed system like France.

I think your ideology and past biases are taking precedence over your ability to dispassionately look at the platforms as they are written.
Well, of course, my opinion's different from yours. So mine must be based on not reading the platform, whereas yours is a wholly dispassionate examination of the evidence.

[Cat Whisperer]

Kind of like not wanting to feed the golden goose.
Pretty much, yeah.

[RickJay]

Polling news from the last few days are, obviously, stunning.

It appears the NDP is most definitely in second place in popular vote and may well be first in Quebec. Conservative support is down a few points but the real victims are the Liberals, who are at a historical nadir, and the Bloc, who are also about as low as they've ever been.

How this will play out in seats is hotly debated. The projections are all over the damn place, ranging from 308's very slow-changing projections, to EKOS's wild 100-seat win for the NDP, to Democratic's Space's projection of a Tory majority with the Liberals and NDP both in the 50's.

The seat arrangement is really hard to predict at this point without riding polls, because the NDP surge and Liberal collapse are so unexpected and vary from region to region.

308 continues to predict not a lot of gain for Quebec, in part because that's the model and in part because of the lack of an NDP "ground game" - the NDP apparently doesn't have a huge organization in most Quebec ridings. I'm always skeptical of such things. How many people do you know who vote only because of the ground game? Neither do I. If the NDP actually has that much support they'll win seats.


An interesting story; Sun Media, owners of the various Sun papers and the EEEEEVIL new Sun TV (which I admit I've never watched, but so many people say it's evil, it must be so) was apparently sent a picture claimed to be Michael Ignatieff with an accompanying story that Ignatieff had helped the USA as an advisor in the invasion of Iraq. The picture looks very convincing and apparently the story and report were quite thorough. To their credit, Sun, realizing the staggering implications, investigated it deeply - and discovered it was an elaborate hoax. They're convinced someone was trying to discredit Sun.

[Euphonious Polemic]

To their credit, Sun, realizing the staggering implications, investigated it deeply - and discovered it was an elaborate hoax. They're convinced someone was trying to discredit Sun.

That "someone" appears to be Patrick Muttart, a fairly high placed Harper Conservative (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/sun-media-honcho-calls-out-ex-harper-operative-on-bogus-ignatieff-iraq-photo/article2000456/)

Mr. Peladeau said that the low-resolution photo was part of a package of information given to Sun Media honcho Kory Teneycke, a former Harper spokesman, by Patrick Muttart, once deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office.

[Cat Whisperer]

Former Harper spokesman, once deputy - I notice that the article doesn't say what role Patrick Muttart is currently filling.

[Raygun99]

Apparently he was still involved with the campaign.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/whiz-kid-patrick-muttart-leaves-tory-campaign-after-fake-ignatieff-photo-flap/article2000591/

I'm quite :rolleyes: at the idea that this was to discredit the Sun. It would have, eventually, but this was aimed at Ignatieff, first and foremost.

[Grey]

Or for those not wanting to click the link Patrick Muttart, a key Harper campaign strategist, has suddenly left the Conservative campaign after reports that he tried to improperly spin a negative story about Michael Ignatieff to Sun Media.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Well, good on Sun TV for catching it before it aired.

And as far as the conservative connection goes, what the fuck was anybody thinking?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Or for those not wanting to click the link

Patrick Muttart, a key Harper campaign strategist, has suddenly left the Conservative campaign after reports that he tried to improperly spin a negative story about Michael Ignatieff to Sun Media.


Must have been some important family matters that he had to deal with.

Look away people. Nothing to see over here.

[Rysto]

The timing on this one is clearly no accident. The Conservatives want this one to hit the media just in time for Canadians to go to the polls, with the Liberals having no chance to refute the allegations in time(and even if they did, the initial allegation always sticks with some people). The Conservatives have been caught red-handed on this one. I hope that for once Canadians don't let Harper off of the hook. Trying to get the media to publish flat-out lies about your opponents is beyond the pale.

It will be interesting to see how the media reacts to this. I have to imagine that they'll be insulted that Harper tried to use them like that, and that rarely ends well.

(Of course, I thought the same thing when Harper refused to take questions from the Parliamentary Press Gallery from day one. Or when Harper refused to answer more than five media questions per day in this campaign. So who knows. The fact that Sun Media publicly named the source of the lie tells me that they, at least, are rather miffed at Harper's presumption)

ETA:
And as far as the conservative connection goes, what the fuck was anybody thinking?
I think that it's clear that the Conservatives thought that Sun Media was just their lap dog. Oops.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Speaking of dirty tricks, I wonder what Gary Lunn's folks have up their sleeve. They are currently worried, since Elizabeth May of the Green Party is currently polling a close second - or in the lead according to a recent (disputed) poll.

Last election, someone mysteriously called voters before the election, urging them to vote for a NDP candidate who had withdrawn. The subsequent vote split let Mr. Lunn win the riding. There were also questions about third party spending - and where the money for these "third parties" actually came from.

Summary Here (http://www.commonground.ca/iss/238/cg238_May-Lunn.shtml)

My favourite quote about this mess from some person in the riding:

Had anything of this kind taken place in Haiti, a place where Canada sends international observers to ensure fair elections, a new round of voting would likely have been ordered. But when it comes to Saanich-Gulf Islands, a less rigorous standard seems to apply.

All I can say is - Your team is being watched Gary. Watched very closely.

[RickJay]

If the "Ignatieff in a uniform" thing was actually dreamt up by the Conservative party... well, that's baffling. I mean, isn't it 100% obvious the story would have been totally debunked within 24 hours? The picture is ridiculous - why in heaven's name would Ignatieff be in full battle uniform? Why would you do this when the Liberal campaign is already dying?

Is this Patrick Muttart, in fact, the stupidest human on earth?

[Euphonious Polemic]

Is this Patrick Muttart, in fact, the stupidest human on earth?

I'm sorry, he cannot comment, as he is spending more time with his family.

I agree though - I have no idea what this picture was even supposed to accomplish.

[RickJay]

I'm sorry, he cannot comment, as he is spending more time with his family.

I agree though - I have no idea what this picture was even supposed to accomplish.
If it actually was Michael Ignateiff it would certainly make him look kind of badass.

[Cat Whisperer]

If we're going to start speculating and ascribing motives when we have no idea what actually happened (did Patrick Muttart do that on his own, or at direction of higher-ups? We'll never know.) I had a call from a polling company, and when I tried to vote non-Liberal in their questions, it wouldn't register. OMG! Liberals only allow people to vote Liberal on their phone polls!

[Rysto]

You have got to be kidding me. The guy is a key part of the 2006 and 2008 Conservative campaigns. He served as Harper's deputy chief of staff. He left the party to join some company in Chicago, but has been working part-time on the Conservative campaign since the election began.

Either Harper knows that his campaign is pulling dirty tricks, or he has no control over his party. Either way, it would seem that whoever is calling the shots in the Conservative party is resorting to outright lying to win this election.

[lexi]

You have got to be kidding me. The guy is a key part of the 2006 and 2008 Conservative campaigns. He served as Harper's deputy chief of staff. He left the party to join some company in Chicago, but has been working part-time on the Conservative campaign since the election began.

Either Harper knows that his campaign is pulling dirty tricks, or he has no control over his party. Either way, it would seem that whoever is calling the shots in the Conservative party is resorting to outright lying to win this election.
I'm with you, no matter the nasty behaviour of members of their party, there must be an excuse according to them.

[Frank]

I had a call from a polling company, and when I tried to vote non-Liberal in their questions, it wouldn't register. OMG! Liberals only allow people to vote Liberal on their phone polls!
Press 1 if you will vote Liberal.

Press 2 if you will definitely vote Liberal.

Press 3 if you will absolutely vote Liberal.

Press 4 if you will positively vote Liberal.

Press 5 to end this call, and request that a Liberal drive you to the poll on Monday.

[Grey]

I object to the obvious "well we're just throwing it out there. Good on the Sun TV guys for doing due diligence". Gutless worms.

Another Globe article (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/sun-media-honcho-calls-out-ex-harper-operative-on-bogus-ignatieff-iraq-photo/article2000456/)

Mr. Peladeau said that the low-resolution photo was part of a package of information given to Sun Media honcho Kory Teneycke, a former Harper spokesman, by Patrick Muttart, once deputy chief of staff in the Prime Minister’s Office.

The Conservative Party said in a statement the photo had been dug up through Internet research and they had admitted being unable to determine the identity of the person resembling Mr. Ignatieff.

"Sun Media informed us that it would conduct its own verification and due diligence," the party said in the statement. "Sun Media concluded that the identity could not be verified. The Sun made the right decision. "

Apparently the jackass thought his drinking buddies would give him a pass based on the earlier Sun Median line of questioning of Ignatieff
Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/04/20/ignatieff-linked-to-iraq-war-planning)

As a politician in Canada, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has said that he was on the sidelines of the Iraq war, but new information reveals he was on the front lines of pre-invasion planning when he worked in the U.S.

Which was apparently either sloppy reporting or deliberate lying according to the Ottawa Citizen (http://talkpos.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/debunking-ignatieffs-iraq-invasion-planning/)

[Sam Stone]

I managed to catch a few ads by the liberals and NDP last night. No wonder the liberals are cratering - their ads suck.

The two Liberal ads I saw last night didn't even mention Ignatieff. What the hell? Do they think their own leader is so weak that they can't even mention him by name? On the other hand, they're probably right about that. Which says it all, doesn't it?

In contrast, the NDP ad put Jack Layton front and center. It seems someone there still understands that politics is about leaders and people.

The liberal ad was a typical attack ad - gloomy music, and a pooly CGI'd spinning Loony with an image of a scowling Harper on one side, and a scowling Layton on the other. The message was, "The NDP and the Conservatives - two sides of the same coin."

First of all, they're not. They're very different. Trying to equate them just muddies the liberal's own message. Second, they built an entire ad campaign on a freaking cliche'? They would have flunked 10th grade english for such weak writing. All I got out of that ad was, "Liberals hate everyone else, and we're not particularly good at anything. Vote for us, and we'll depress you for the next four years."

In contrast, Layton's ad was all about smilin' Jack. Images of him laughing, bantering with people, having a good time. There was nothing negative about the ad at all. It was all positive and upbeat. It told people why to vote for the NDP, not why to vote against the other guys. And Layton looks like a great spokesman and a fun guy - someone you would enjoy as your leader.

If this is the best the Liberals can do, they're doomed. The NDP, on the other hand, are doing it right. At least in that ad.

Funny, but I never saw a single Conservative ad all night, but I saw Liberal and NDP ads constantly. Maybe it was just a fluke.

[Muffin]

Funny, but I never saw a single Conservative ad all night, but I saw Liberal and NDP ads constantly. Maybe it was just a fluke.I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives didn't bother with much television advertising in Edmonton. Since Jaffers is not running, they will probably take all the local ridings easily.

[RickJay]

The message was, "The NDP and the Conservatives - two sides of the same coin."

First of all, they're not. They're very different.
Even in the context of the ad it's amazingly hard to tell just what their point is. Even if you're going to trot out a tired cliche, explain WHY you're saying they're two sides of the same coin.

It's not hard to see why the NDP is so far ahead of the Liberals. They deserve to be. Campaigns matter, and the NDP has run a terrific campaign while the Liberals have gone off the rails since Week 2.

It's hard to gauge just what will happen on Monday because the NDP jump has different effects in different ridings; in some places the NDP can win, in some places it makes it likelier the Conservatives will win, in some places they could take seats from the Bloc, who the hell knows. What is for sure is that unless NDP support in the polls is overstating what will happen on Monday - and that is entirely possible, and there are many examples of such things happening - the Liberals could be headed for an absolutely catastrophic result.

[Malthus]

I know the Lib campaign has been a disaster (hey, just look at the polls), but what exactly have they done to earn such a shellacking? Sure, their ads are for crap, but so are the Con ads - and the Cons have many times more scandals and gaffes. Yet the Cons haven't moved in the polls.

[RickJay]

I know the Lib campaign has been a disaster (hey, just look at the polls), but what exactly have they done to earn such a shellacking? Sure, their ads are for crap, but so are the Con ads - and the Cons have many times more scandals and gaffes. Yet the Cons haven't moved in the polls.
The Conservatives are down according to every poll. They're in the lead but are 3-6 points back of where they were.

I have to go back to something I've said before; if you want people to vote for you you have to give them a clear reason to vote for you.

The Conservatives, whatever you think of them, have a clear, if uninspiring, message; vote for us and you get stable government and a firm hand on the economic steering wheel. It's produced clear, if uninspiring, results.

The NDP, whatever you think of them, as a clear and very positive message; Jack Layton is going to give you more stuff if you're an ordinary schmoe (and pretty much everyone is.) It's produced positive results.

The Green Party still manages to hold on to one voter in twenty despite being a hopeless lost cause - and that's a lot, when you think about it - because they have an absolutely crystal-clear purpose and message.

The Liberals.... well, to be honest, I still don't know what the hell their message is. They talked about helping families but that was lifted from the NDP's previous platforms. They started off with a positive message but went almost totally negative; they have no clear, central message; their leader's image hasn't really been defined, and he himself is all over the map. The Liberal message, to be quite honest, appears to be that you should vote Liberal because they're Liberals, and Liberals always deserve to win. If anything, that message is going to seem repellent to a lot of people.

I can't help but notice the Bloc Quebecois's campaign is going equally horribly, and the thing is, THEIR campaign is just as message-free; it's basically "Vote for us because we represent your interests," which is sort of tautological, since that's what all politicians claim to do. They (at first) avoided admitting they were a separatist party, thereby giving taking away much of their raison d'etre, and thanks to the NDP surge haven't any real differentiation in terms of social policy, so it amounts to "Vote BQ because you should." It's just as lame as the Liberal message and it's proving just as successful.

Of course every party has engaged in vicious attack ads, but you need to lay out a clear image of what people are voting for, especially in a multi-party system. Party A convincing you not to vote for Party B might convince you to vote for Party C, not Party A.

[Sam Stone]

The Conservatives are the safe ones - they've been in power all through the financial crisis, and Canada has come out of in the best shape of any country in the G8. Now, whether they deserve credit for that or not is another question we can debate, but the fact is that they've got the trust of Canadians that they won't do anything stupid or reckless, and the old tactic of trying to smear the Conservatives as dangerous religious right zealots just doesn't fly any more.

In other words, it's up to the other parties to earn their way to power. They have to prove that they've got what it takes, and have a vision they can sell to the public to convince them that they can do a better job. The NDP is trying to do that, while the liberals are just trying to discredit the other guys. That was never going to work. Trying to play on scandals only works when people are already unhappy with the party in power or with the economy.

Also, I'm wondering if negative campaigning has the same effect in the internet age as it had in the past. It's too easy to cross-check these things now, and the people who actually care and are active in politics already know this stuff. It may be that the Conservatives had already taken their hits over those scandals and would be even more popular without them. In which case all the Liberals could manage to do by going negative is to pull themselves down into the mud, leaving Jack Layton as the last man standing in opposition.

Also, I think it really says something that the liberals are trying to downplay their own leader. That's just sad. Time for Ignatieff to go.

[Rysto]

I know the Lib campaign has been a disaster (hey, just look at the polls), but what exactly have they done to earn such a shellacking?
I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the dip was the Liberals losing the "anybody but the Conservatives" vote.

[RickJay]

I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of the dip was the Liberals losing the "anybody but the Conservatives" vote.
But that doesn't explain anything.

The "Anything but the Conservatives" vote isn't projecting to be much different than it was in 2008. In 2008 the CPC got 36.27% of the vote, which is more or less what they're expected to get this time. There isn't, as near as we can tell so far, any significant change in the number of people voting Conservative. So what seems to be droving it all from the Liberals to the NDP?

1. Shitty leader. Ignatieff has been an unmitigated disaster.
2. Shitty campaign. What's the message?
3. Shitty party. What's the platform?

[RickJay]

Incidentally, what's being underreported is how much this could affect the Bloc.

Forum Research's latest poll suggests the near-annihilation of the BQ, down to 3 seats. Wow. I don't think that's likely, but it sure would be nice.

[RickJay]

And let's get some PREDICTIONS Going! Place Yer Bets!

I'm calling it:

Conservatives - 155
NDP - 63
Liberal - 60
Bloc - 30

Yep, I'm expecting a slight NDP bounceback and some Liberal/NDP splitting.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Incidentally, what's being underreported is how much this could affect the Bloc.

Forum Research's latest poll suggests the near-annihilation of the BQ, down to 3 seats. Wow. I don't think that's likely, but it sure would be nice.

I'd be happy if any party got a majority government as a result of the near annihilation of the Bloc. I suppose My new found affection for Jack Layton may well be because he's destroying them.. Frankly, I still don't understand why and I really haven't heard any commentary to explain it.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Conservatives.......149
NDP.......................101
Liberals...................34
Bloc.........................24

[RickJay]

I'd be happy if any party got a majority government as a result of the near annihilation of the Bloc. I suppose My new found affection for Jack Layton may well be because he's destroying them.. Frankly, I still don't understand why and I really haven't heard any commentary to explain it.
I don't think anyone knows why they've taken off so huge in Quebec. It's a huge surprise.

Once they caught the Liberals overall the surge ahead of them made sense; the NDP were historically held back because nobody wanted to waste a vote, but then the Quebec surge happened, the national numbers started evening up, and people who were grudgingly voting for The Count and Team Red were happy to switch to a party that looked like a winner. But what's bizarre is the extent of the initial surge in Quebec. Supposedly Layton did great on "Tout le Parle en Monde" and in the Francophone debates, but, geez, that much better than in 2008?

The NDP in Quebec is facing some embarassment in that some of their candidates don't live in (and might never have been in, from the sounds of it) the ridings they're running for, don't speak French in ridings that are almost entirely Francophone, stuff like that. For years the NDP have run students and volunteers from other parts of the country as placeholders in Quebec ridings they just assumed were unwinnable and so wouldn't bother to vet real candidates.

This might cost them some ridings now, and might result in some very embarassing post-election gaffes. I said upthread "ground game" is overrated but in some of these closer ridings, the NDP organization is so thin that it might matter a lot.

[Cat Whisperer]

Conservatives.......149
NDP.......................101
Liberals...................34
Bloc.........................24
Bold!

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

I think -

Conservatives - 131
Liberals - 77
NDP - 60
Bloc - 40

based largely on current predictions on threehundredeight.com. I don't think the surge in NDP support is necessarily going to translate into a lot more seats for them, and it may well scare a lot of soft supporters of other parties into showing up at the polls.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Conservatives: 138
Liberal : ............70
NDP:................69
Bloc:................31

[Leaffan]

And let's get some PREDICTIONS Going! Place Yer Bets!

I'm calling it:

Conservatives - 155
NDP - 63
Liberal - 60
Bloc - 30

Yep, I'm expecting a slight NDP bounceback and some Liberal/NDP splitting.

I sincerely hope you're right on this Rick, but I doubt the Conservative majority. There may be enough vote splitting to support the theory, but I just don't see it.

I still think the Liberals will come out ahead over the NDP and that it will be a Conservative minority: and then of course a loss of confidence vote and a coalition. God knows which one will now become PM.

I still can't believe that anyone would vote NDP, let alone the tidal wave of support they're receiving: smiles and snake oil indeed.

[Gorsnak]

I don't think anyone knows why they've taken off so huge in Quebec. It's a huge surprise.

My operating theory is that it's due to matt_mcl's hard work.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I still think the Liberals will come out ahead over the NDP and that it will be a Conservative minority: and then of course a loss of confidence vote and a coalition. God knows which one will now become PM.

A few weeks ago I would have agreed that this might have been possible. Now though - you hit the nail on the head with your question about who would become PM. Depends very much on how many seats the NDP gets and how many the Liberals lose. I see Layton being happier in Opposition.


I still can't believe that anyone would vote NDP, let alone the tidal wave of support they're receiving: smiles and snake oil indeed.

I guess the voters are all stupid and gullible then. ;)

In some ridings, it may be a case of "whoever has the best chance of beating the Conservative. I could move 10 km, and find myself voting Liberal, NDP or Green.

[Uzi]

My operating theory is that it's due to matt_mcl's hard work.

Nah, he's probably out prancing around naked in the woods as Wiccans tend to do.

[Leaffan]

I guess the voters are all stupid and gullible then. ;)


Pretty much.

[Cunctator]

Only one weekend to go! Do Canadians get to enjoy a media blackout in the days before the election, or must you suffer the advertising right up until polling day?

[orcenio]

I sincerely hope you're right on this Rick, but I doubt the Conservative majority. There may be enough vote splitting to support the theory, but I just don't see it.

I still think the Liberals will come out ahead over the NDP and that it will be a Conservative minority: and then of course a loss of confidence vote and a coalition. God knows which one will now become PM.

I still can't believe that anyone would vote NDP, let alone the tidal wave of support they're receiving: smiles and snake oil indeed.You call the NDP "smiles and snake oil;" just image if Harper had a majority, it'd be 4 solid years of


Tory MPs told to keep their mouths shut.
The national press being banned from getting near Harper.
The parliament being routinely lied to by the standing government.
The opposition being soundly castrated.
These are not trivial issues; most Canadians have no trust in a government that requires you to have trust in them.

[RickJay]

You call the NDP "smiles and snake oil;" just image if Harper had a majority, it'd be 4 solid years of

[LIST]
Tory MPs told to keep their mouths shut.
The national press being banned from getting near Harper.
The parliament being routinely lied to by the standing government.
The opposition being soundly castrated.
This doesn't sound any different from past governments.

People have strangely short memories. Doesn't anyone remember how the Chretien government was roundly and regularly criticized for secrecy, or consolidating power in the PMO, for keeping backbenchers shut up?

They've been saying this since the days of Sir John A.

[orcenio]

I certainly have a short memory so some cites would be helpful.

[Hypnagogic Jerk]

I don't think anyone knows why they've taken off so huge in Quebec. It's a huge surprise.
Well, as I said some two weeks ago:
So what's the future of the Bloc? It will probably remain as a parked vote for sovereigntists, as long as these sovereigntists are there. I note that the NDP's Quebec strategy is starting to bear fruit, with it gaining votes in Quebec at the expense of the Bloc. (Maybe I'll look wholly predictable if I say that the Bloc and the NDP are the two parties I'm thinking of voting for this election, but that's because I'll be voting in Gatineau and if Françoise Boivin is again running for the NDP, she both has a chance and would once again make a great MP.) The NDP, of course, isn't far from (the urban wing of) the Bloc socially and economically, Jack Layton is very popular in Quebec, and the NDP, despite being a left-wing party which is usually more centralizing -- see Ed Broadbent, who amazingly was also popular in Quebec -- has expressed tolerance for the fact that Quebec is in many ways different from the rest of Canada and there may not be only one way for the whole country. matt_mcl might be able to say more about this. On the other hand, like the Bloc the NDP has no chance to form the government, not alone anyway. So we'll see where that leads us.
This was just slightly before the NDP surge (now I wonder if it's actually true that the NDP has no chance to form the government, even though I'm not expecting that for May 3), but the point was that the NDP has been working hard in Quebec ever since Layton's been its leader. And they've increased their vote share every single time: 1.8% in 2000, 4.6% in 2004, 7.5% in 2006 and 12.2% (and a seat) in 2008. I'm as surprised as everyone that they're now at 35% or so, but it was a sure thing that they'd increase their share again; looking at polls from March they were already somewhere between 14 and 20%. I guess what we can say is that they've suddenly reached critical mass: once you've got a sufficient share of the vote, word-of-mouth and media exposure gives you momentum which in turn makes your campaign snowball.

But what's bizarre is the extent of the initial surge in Quebec. Supposedly Layton did great on "Tout le Parle en Monde" and in the Francophone debates, but, geez, that much better than in 2008?
Tout le monde en parle. But I don't think it's such a surprise. Switching between the Bloc and NDP isn't so hard if you're a moderate nationalist, much easier than you probably think. Layton has the advantage of looking like someone who knows Quebecers and knows what they want Canada to be and what they want their place in the country to be, which we cannot say of Harper or even Ignatieff.

The NDP in Quebec is facing some embarassment in that some of their candidates don't live in (and might never have been in, from the sounds of it) the ridings they're running for, don't speak French in ridings that are almost entirely Francophone, stuff like that. For years the NDP have run students and volunteers from other parts of the country as placeholders in Quebec ridings they just assumed were unwinnable and so wouldn't bother to vet real candidates.
This is true. If they manage to reach 15 or so Quebec seats, it could be looking like the ADQ breakthrough of 2007; anothing political event that was predictable up to a point but surprised the party so much that they entered the National Assembly as Official Opposition with a caucus of placeholders. Their performance was so appalling that they were severely punished in 2008. The same thing could happen to the NDP, so they'll have to give their new MPs a thorough formation.

I can't help but notice the Bloc Quebecois's campaign is going equally horribly, and the thing is, THEIR campaign is just as message-free; it's basically "Vote for us because we represent your interests," which is sort of tautological, since that's what all politicians claim to do. They (at first) avoided admitting they were a separatist party, thereby giving taking away much of their raison d'etre, and thanks to the NDP surge haven't any real differentiation in terms of social policy, so it amounts to "Vote BQ because you should." It's just as lame as the Liberal message and it's proving just as successful.
What the Bloc is actually saying is "Vote for us because we represent your interests, unlike all other parties who represent the interests of English Canada which are different and often opposite from yours." And this can definitely work against the Conservatives and Liberals, but the thing is that the NDP has managed to plant the idea that it can also defend Quebec's interests. So the Bloc has apparently started attacking the NDP's record as a federalist, left-wing party (and therefore one with a tendency toward centralisation), raising up its role in the 1981 Patriation debate and the debate on the Clarity Act in the late 90s, and demanding Layton answer a few questions about its position on some issues important to Quebecers. I think it's too late for the Bloc this time, Layton can just keep his mouth shut until the election and his surge will still probably concretise itself. But it may become more of an issue in the next election, which (if the Conservatives do not get a majority, and are not propped up by the Liberals) could happen soon, perhaps before the end of the year. Of course, the leaderless Liberals might very well decide they want to buy themselves some time by supporting yet again another Conservative minority government.

[RickJay]

I think it's too late for the Bloc this time, Layton can just keep his mouth shut until the election and his surge will still probably concretise itself.
I wouldn't want to bet my house on it, though. Late surges by unlikely parties sometimes pull back on Election Day and the arrangement of ridings and support in Quebec heavily favours the Bloc; depending on just how large the gaps are, the NDP could win in popular support, but win very few seats. It is quite possible they could win the popular vote in Quebec and still win fewer seats than the Bloc, Liberals, AND Tories. Depends how much they win the popular vote by - it has to be a reasonably good margin to translate into big seat gains.

Terrific Toronto Star story a few days ago about another NDP candidate in Toronto who, so far as anyone can tell, might not actually exist. Well, I'd presume there is some way EC ensures a person exists, but nobody can find her and the NDP won't say anything about her.

I'm also amused by the situation in Berthier-Maskinonge where NDP candidate Ruth Ellen Brosseau took off to Vegas during the campaign and apparently can't speak French even though essentially all her potential constituents are Francophone. In a hilarious add-on, Brosseau - who works at a bar in Ottawa - is now refusing interviews because she's "Freaked out" by media coverage. Talk about your ill-advised job applications. "Sure, I'd like to be an MP. But I don't speak the same language as the people I'd represent. Oh, and I don't like media coverage. Also I hate anything involving voting."

ADQ situation? Entirely possible. I'm also remidned of the surprise NDP win in Ontario in 1990; the slate of candidates wasn't outright silly like we're hearing about this slate, but when they had to form a cabinet there were a lot of folks running the province who clearly weren't ready for management positions.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Pretty much.

I think you've summed up the Conservative party attitude quite succinctly here.

-They think that 65% of the Canadian voters are stupid and can be ignored.

-They think that nuclear scientists at Chalk River are stupid, and the warnings of the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission can be ignored.

-They think that researchers in the Lancet are stupid, and BC judges are stupid for saying that Vancouver's safe injection site is a good thing and saves lives. Ideology trumps science, because everyone else is stupid.

- They think that the IPCC is composed entirely of stupid scientists, and that Conservative ideology must be correct in terms of global warming.

[Leaffan]

I think you've summed up the Conservative party attitude quite succinctly here.

-They think that 65% of the Canadian voters are stupid and can be ignored.

-They think that nuclear scientists at Chalk River are stupid, and the warnings of the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission can be ignored.

-They think that researchers in the Lancet are stupid, and BC judges are stupid for saying that Vancouver's safe injection site is a good thing and saves lives. Ideology trumps science, because everyone else is stupid.

- They think that the IPCC is composed entirely of stupid scientists, and that Conservative ideology must be correct in terms of global warming.

I'm in a conflict position on the Chalk River issue and can't address it. There's more to the story than you probably are aware of.

I'm not sure what to think of safe injection sites. You might be right on this one.

The Conservative party has in fact acknowledged climate change as an issue. Bankrupting the country through carbon taxes, cap and trades, etc. isn't going to help anyone right now. Especially since Canada's output is what, 3% of the global total? We have bigger fish to fry.

The Conservatives have the right policies for the continuation of economic growth. The NDP are promising anything and everything to everyone. The Liberals fall somewhere in between, have no defence strategy, want to institutionalize day care, and a bunch of other stuff I don't think we can afford.

[Malthus]

But that doesn't explain anything.

The "Anything but the Conservatives" vote isn't projecting to be much different than it was in 2008. In 2008 the CPC got 36.27% of the vote, which is more or less what they're expected to get this time. There isn't, as near as we can tell so far, any significant change in the number of people voting Conservative. So what seems to be droving it all from the Liberals to the NDP?

1. Shitty leader. Ignatieff has been an unmitigated disaster.
2. Shitty campaign. What's the message?
3. Shitty party. What's the platform?

I gotta conclude you are right from the results; but honestly, I didn't notice any increase in overall Liberal shittiness over last time around, or anything that the NDP has done to be so attractive.

I'm simply flabbergasted.

Perhaps it is that the electorate has been willing somewhat to give the Libs the benefit of the doubt for a while, and has concluded they are not going to improve, so they lost patience.

[mnemosyne]

FWIW the vast majority of the Liberal ads playing in Québec that I've seen have had Ignatieff talking, discussing his platform (insofar as such ads tend to go). I've seen the spinning coin ad, while watching a Toronto-based TV channel, which doesn't mean it hasn't aired elsewhere, but perhaps speaks to the different approaches being used in different regions.

[Lunar Saltlick]

FWIW the vast majority of the Liberal ads playing in Québec that I've seen have had Ignatieff talking, discussing his platform (insofar as such ads tend to go). I've seen the spinning coin ad, while watching a Toronto-based TV channel, which doesn't mean it hasn't aired elsewhere, but perhaps speaks to the different approaches being used in different regions.

That's my experience in Quebec as well. Ignatieff is front and centre and talking strictly platform in the TV ads. They're really very effective ads. Mind you, I don't watch an awful lot of tube these days, so maybe I've seen a very small sampling.

The thing that Layton will learn about Quebec is that they'll crush you just as quickly as they'll raise you to the rafters. I've never seen such a bandwagon electorate. My SO is practically on the verge of leaving the Bloc for the NDP. It's astonishing.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm in a conflict position on the Chalk River issue and can't address it. There's more to the story than you probably are aware of.

I'm not sure what to think of safe injection sites. You might be right on this one.

The Conservative party has in fact acknowledged climate change as an issue. Bankrupting the country through carbon taxes, cap and trades, etc. isn't going to help anyone right now. Especially since Canada's output is what, 3% of the global total? We have bigger fish to fry.

The Conservatives have the right policies for the continuation of economic growth. The NDP are promising anything and everything to everyone. The Liberals fall somewhere in between, have no defence strategy, want to institutionalize day care, and a bunch of other stuff I don't think we can afford.

Well, I'm sure you know quite a bit more about Chalk River than I do, but I think I can say that Gary Lunn, MP with 2 whole years of experience as a lawyer knows a whole bunch less than the actual scientists involved. It's hard to get the facts when federal scientists are told what they can and cannot say (http://sciencewriters.ca/2011/04/21/whos-muzzling-canadian-scientists/) by a government concerned with ideology.

Yes, the Conservatives have (finally) acknowledged that Climate Change may have a factual basis, after many years of denial. When they actually come up with potential solutions instead of doing nothing but pissing and moaning about potential solutions, I will actually believe that they are sincere.

Your opinions about the ability of the Conservative Party to do what is best for Canada are certainly sincere, and some of them I agree with. However, to simply paint voters for other parties as gullible believers in "smiles and snake oil" is disrespectful of other valid points of view.

[Uzi]

However, to simply paint voters for other parties as gullible believers in "smiles and snake oil" is disrespectful of other valid points of view.

Believing that money grows on trees is not a valid point of view.

[borschevsky]

The Liberals.... well, to be honest, I still don't know what the hell their message is.In the last couple news clips I've seen of Ignatieff speaking, he's been making the point that the Liberals need to have a clear message to distinguish themselves from the other parties - so at least the Liberals are aware of it. However, all that I end up getting from it is that their clear message is that they need to have a clear message. :D

[Euphonious Polemic]

Believing that money grows on trees is not a valid point of view.

Believing that this caricature is an actual NDP or Liberal belief is not a valid point of view. It just indicates that your knowledge of what the other parties are all about is rather dated.

[Leaffan]

Well, I'm sure you know quite a bit more about Chalk River than I do, but I think I can say that Gary Lunn, MP with 2 whole years of experience as a lawyer knows a whole bunch less than the actual scientists involved. It's hard to get the facts when federal scientists are told what they can and cannot say (http://sciencewriters.ca/2011/04/21/whos-muzzling-canadian-scientists/) by a government concerned with ideology.
I dunno. The government signs their paycheque. I think it's entirely reasonable for your employer to ask you not to discuss recent findings, patents, experiments, etc. You sure wouldn't have direct access to scientists at say, Dow Chemical, without upper management OK'ing it.


Yes, the Conservatives have (finally) acknowledged that Climate Change may have a factual basis, after many years of denial. When they actually come up with potential solutions instead of doing nothing but pissing and moaning about potential solutions, I will actually believe that they are sincere.

Whatever we do in Canada has to be harmonized with policies in the US or else we're setting the country up for economic disaster.


Your opinions about the ability of the Conservative Party to do what is best for Canada are certainly sincere, and some of them I agree with. However, to simply paint voters for other parties as gullible believers in "smiles and snake oil" is disrespectful of other valid points of view.
I apologize. I think we're all nervous about this outcome for our own esoteric, and to us, valid reasons.

[Cat Whisperer]

I don't think voters are stupid and ignorant; I am astonished by the short memories, however (especially blaming the Conservative government for creating budgets that the Liberals, NDP and Bloc demanded). I like to think my memory is a little longer, which is why I think all the parties are corrupt, and don't think that one federal party is magically above the dirty dealings that all the other parties engage in. Would I *like* my federal politicians to be honest and fair? Of course, but I'm not naive enough to think that any of them are. If they're successful in a system that promotes corruption, they'll most likely be corrupt.

As for the NDP surge in Quebec, that sort of makes sense; the Bloc were successful on the basis of promising Quebecers the world, and the NDP have a very similar platform.

[Uzi]

Believing that this caricature is an actual NDP or Liberal belief is not a valid point of view. It just indicates that your knowledge of what the other parties are all about is rather dated.


Okay, believing that you can spend billions on new and upgraded social services with no possible means of paying for them other than on the backs of future generations or declaring bankruptcy isn't a valid point of view. It is lunacy. There are ample examples around the world right now when this is done that even the most die hard socialist should take pause. But not in Canada. Somehow in Canada we think that money behaves differently for us.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Okay, believing that you can spend billions on new and upgraded social services with no possible means of paying for them other than on the backs of future generations or declaring bankruptcy isn't a valid point of view. It is lunacy. There are ample examples around the world right now when this is done that even the most die hard socialist should take pause. But not in Canada. Somehow in Canada we think that money behaves differently for us.

I realize it's de rigueur to paint anyone to the right of the CPC as wanting to enlarge government and pour money every which way, leading to bankrupting the country, but this is simply an exaggeration. It's this fear of free-spending lefties who are out of touch with "real" finances that is currently being spread around by Harper.

Fear sells. Fear wins elections. Fear does not want to be confused by facts.

This is not your father's NDP.

[Leaffan]

I actually prefer Ed Broadbent!

[RickJay]

Well, I'm sure you know quite a bit more about Chalk River than I do, but I think I can say that Gary Lunn, MP with 2 whole years of experience as a lawyer knows a whole bunch less than the actual scientists involved. It's hard to get the facts when federal scientists are told what they can and cannot say (http://sciencewriters.ca/2011/04/21/whos-muzzling-canadian-scientists/) by a government concerned with ideology.
From that link:

While some in attendance seemed eager to blame Stephen Harper for this strict control, Stephenson pointed out that the situation pre-dates any particular government. What we are seeing, he explained, is the increased politicization of science and the growth of business management practices in government that dates back decades. As an example, he referenced the battle between politicians and scientists over the health of the Atlantic cod fisheries in the 1960s.
This doesn't seem to be a problem particular to the 2006-2011 Conservative government, if we go by your own cite.

Yes, the Conservatives have (finally) acknowledged that Climate Change may have a factual basis, after many years of denial.
If you wouldn't mind humouring me, but I'm a stickler for facts in terms of this sort of thing; could you provide some evidence the Conservative Party of Canada, as an organization, ever took a stance of denial of global warming? When was this? In what platform?

If you don't think the Conservatives are prioritizing global warming enough that's a valid viewpoint, but can we please get the facts straight? When did the Conservative Party deny that global warming was a real phenomenon?

[Euphonious Polemic]

From that link:


This doesn't seem to be a problem particular to the 2006-2011 Conservative government, if we go by your own cite.

As an example, he referenced the battle between politicians and scientists over the health of the Atlantic cod fisheries in the 1960s.

This is a particularly apt example of politicians ignoring scientists (and is interestingly one of the main reasons I avoided any possibility of working for the the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans)


If you wouldn't mind humouring me, but I'm a stickler for facts in terms of this sort of thing; could you provide some evidence the Conservative Party of Canada, as an organization, ever took a stance of denial of global warming? When was this? In what platform?

If you don't think the Conservatives are prioritizing global warming enough that's a valid viewpoint, but can we please get the facts straight? When did the Conservative Party deny that global warming was a real phenomenon?

Of course you know that the CPC have never come right out and put it in a platform policy statement, but in the past, Harper sure seemed to not understand what
science of Climate Change was all about (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163817)

Back in the 2004 election campaign, Harper said of climate change: "The science is still evolving."

And in September 2002, Harper said this when asked about the "greenhouse effect:" "It's a scientific hypothesis, a controversial one and one that I think there is some preliminary evidence for. ...

The greenhouse effect is a "controversial scientific hypothesis"?? WTF?

[Sam Stone]

This is a particularly apt example of politicians ignoring scientists (and is interestingly one of the main reasons I avoided any possibility of working for the the Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans)



Of course you know that the CPC have never come right out and put it in a platform policy statement, but in the past, Harper sure seemed to not understand what
science of Climate Change was all about (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/163817)



The greenhouse effect is a "controversial scientific hypothesis"?? WTF?

Wow, that was a deceptively chosen quote you just offered. Let's quote Harper more fully from your own cite:


In a year-end interview with CBC Newsworld's Don Newman, Harper was asked yesterday whether his environmental views had evolved – specifically, whether he has ceased having doubts about the scientific evidence for global warming.

"I don't think that fairly represents my criticism," Harper told Newman. "I think my criticism was principally that the (Kyoto climate-change accord) targets were unreachable, Canada had taken on the most onerous targets in the world; I saw no evidence that there was a plan to meet them. ... If anything in the last four or five years, the evidence has strengthened that we have to take real and substantive action."

Bolding mine. That quote, from the same article, was three years newer than the one you chose. And in any event, Harper was right in 2002: the science was still evolving - and it still is, and always will be. That's how science works. Over time, the evidence collected has made the climate change case stronger and stronger, and Harper acknowledged that as time went on.

He was also right that the Kyoto Accord was unworkable, and that its benefits were negligible.

You chose to spin it as though Harper was playing games and giving a wink and a nod to the climate change deniers. The article in full clearly shows that he believes it's happening.

[Euphonious Polemic]

You chose to spin it as though Harper was playing games and giving a wink and a nod to the climate change deniers. The article in full clearly shows that he believes it's happening.

In 2002, he did not even know what the fuck the greenhouse effect was, and said:

"It's a scientific hypothesis, a controversial one and one that I think there is some preliminary evidence for. ... This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this (Kyoto accord) will do to their economy and lifestyle, when the benefits are negligible."

SOME PRELIMINARY EVIDENCE for the Greenhouse effect? I guess John Tyndal's work on greenhouse gases in 1859 is just a little too "preliminary" for Harper.

"fun" for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa? What the fuck was that supposed to mean?

Harper was at that time anti-science. Perhaps he has learned more today. Or perhaps he just keeps his anti-science views better wrapped up.

[Sam Stone]

Look, if you're going to fairly quote the man, you can't quote what he said in 2002, and leave out the fact that the same freaking article quoted him three years later saying that he was misinterpreted then, and that he believed that the evidence was that serious action needed to be taken.

As for your 1859 paper - no one has disputed that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect, and clearly Harper was not denying that the earth enjoys a greenhouse effect that keeps it warm. The controversy has been specifically over whether man is significantly adding to it to the extent that major damage will be caused to the global economy and environment in the medium time frame.

The fact that Harper was admitting in 2005 that the evidence was strong enough to warrant significant government action puts him on the 'enlightened' side of conservative politicians around the world, yet you're trying to spin him as a climate change-denying, anti-science troglodyte by using selective quotation and ignoring statements he's made that don't fit the spin you're trying to employ.

[Euphonious Polemic]

In 2002, Harper clearly did not understand the difference between the science of climate change (at that time global warming) and the science behind the greenhouse effect. He conflated the two.

He may be more knowledgeable about science now, but his government has shown itself to be, at best, ambivalent about scientific knowledge.