# The Canadian Election Thread. (Or maybe not...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [March 21, 2011, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419 "2011-03-21T00:51:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/541 "2011-04-17T14:43:20Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/le_ministre_de_l_au-dela/32/12181_2.png) [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Ministre_de_l_au-dela)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/542 "2011-04-17T14:46:26Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/543 "2011-04-17T15:02:32Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/544 "2011-04-17T16:53:20Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/545 "2011-04-17T17:27:19Z")
> [@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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/546 "2011-04-17T18:32:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > \ > 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;\ > > 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? > [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Baffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dec6dc/32.png) [@Baffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baffle)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/547 "2011-04-17T18:41:23Z")
> [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Rysto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ecccb3/32.png) [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/548 "2011-04-17T19:22:34Z")
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. > [@Cat\_Whisperer](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Baffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dec6dc/32.png) [@Baffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baffle)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/549 "2011-04-17T19:47:02Z")
> [@Rysto](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/550 "2011-04-17T20:21:45Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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. [QUOTE=Cat Whisperer] 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? [/QUOTE] 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? ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/551 "2011-04-17T20:44:32Z")
> [@Baffle](#): > > 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. > [@Rysto](#): > > \ > 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. > [@RickJay](#): > > \ > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/552 "2011-04-17T21:24:59Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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: > [@Canadian Politics: What a difference a month makes!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/canadian-politics-what-a-difference-a-month-makes/308738/21): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/553 "2011-04-17T22:08:53Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/554 "2011-04-17T22:47:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > 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_. 😛 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 **bi** lingualism) of languages, not about imposing a particular language for international commerce. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/555 "2011-04-17T22:53:37Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2011, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/556 "2011-04-17T22:56:25Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/557 "2011-04-18T00:21:01Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > … 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? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/558 "2011-04-18T00:25:54Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/559 "2011-04-18T01:37:46Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Baffle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/dec6dc/32.png) [@Baffle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baffle)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/560 "2011-04-18T02:01:01Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=29)