# 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:** 29
**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 18, 2011, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/561 "2011-04-18T02:04:12Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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? ---
**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, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/562 "2011-04-18T02:12:38Z")
> [@Le\_Ministre\_de\_l\_au-dela](#): > > 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. ---
**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 18, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/563 "2011-04-18T02:39:35Z")
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. ---
**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, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/564 "2011-04-18T03:13:13Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. ---
**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, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/565 "2011-04-18T03:55:01Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > 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.) [QUOTE=Gorsnak] 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… [/QUOTE] 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. [QUOTE=Gorsnak] His choice was between a campaign where he’d broken his high profile promise and one where he hadn’t. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/566 "2011-04-18T14:29:21Z")
> [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](#): > > 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_. 😛 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 **bi** lingualism) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/567 "2011-04-18T19:16:36Z")
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? ---
**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, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/568 "2011-04-18T19:59:48Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2011, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/569 "2011-04-18T20:09:47Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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? ---
**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 18, 2011, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/570 "2011-04-18T20:39:24Z")
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… ---
**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, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/571 "2011-04-18T23:30:58Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. ---
**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 19, 2011, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/572 "2011-04-19T03:37:38Z")
> [@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.\*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/573 "2011-04-19T13:15:26Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/574 "2011-04-19T16:37:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/575 "2011-04-19T17:43:34Z")
> [@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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/576 "2011-04-19T17:56:56Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > 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. ---
**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 19, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/577 "2011-04-19T20:04:12Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > 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? 😕 Not sure I see the issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/578 "2011-04-19T20:15:05Z")
> [@straight\_man](#): > > Unions… do sometimes tell people how to vote, yes? 😕 > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/579 "2011-04-19T21:55:00Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419/580 "2011-04-20T03:27:22Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-canadian-election-thread-or-maybe-not/575419.md?page=30)